case 3:01-cv-00640-si document 2373 filed 07/16/21 page 1
TRANSCRIPT
TODD D. TRUE (WSB #12864) THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. SIMON [email protected] AMANDA W. GOODIN (WSB #41312) [email protected] Earthjustice 810 Third Ave., Suite 610 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 343-7340 | Phone (206) 343-1526 | Fax DANIEL J. ROHLF (OSB #99006) [email protected] Earthrise Law Center Lewis & Clark Law School 10015 S.W. Terwilliger Boulevard, MSC 51 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 768-6707 | Phone (503) 768-6642 | Fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION AMERICAN RIVERS, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMENâS ASSOCIATIONS, INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES, SIERRA CLUB, IDAHO RIVERS UNITED, NORTHWEST SPORTFISHING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, NW ENERGY COALITION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER, IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, and FLY FISHERS INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiffs, and STATE OF OREGON, Intervenor-Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 3:01-cv-00640-SI
NWFâS MOTION FOR APRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Oral Argument Requested
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 64
v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, and U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, Defendants, and NORTHWEST IRRIGATION UTILITIES, PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL, COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, FRANKLIN COUNTY FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, GRANT COUNTY FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, NORTHWEST RIVER PARTNERS, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES, STATE OF MONTANA, INLAND PORTS AND NAVIGATION GROUP, and KOOTENAI TRIBE OF IDAHO, Intervenor-Defendants. ____________________________________________
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 64
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... vi
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .....................................................................................................1
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ...........3
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5
I. THE NEW (OLD) STRUCTURE OF THE 2020 BIOP JEOPARDY ANALYSIS ...........6
A. The 2020 BiOp Compares the Effects of the Proposed Action to the Effects of Prior, Illegal Operations. .........................................................................7
B. The 2020 BiOp Uses a âNot-Appreciably-Worseâ Jeopardy Standard. ................10
C. The 2020 BiOp Does Not Evaluate Whether the Proposed Action With the Advancing Effects of Climate Change Will Cause Jeopardy to ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead. ...........................................................................................13
D. The 2020 BiOp Relies on Benefits From Unspecified and Uncertain Habitat Improvement Actions. ...............................................................................15
E. The 2020 BiOp Fails to Explain How Its Quantitative or Qualitative Analyses Support Its No Jeopardy Conclusion. .....................................................16
II. THE CORPSâ 2020 ROD IS BASED ON THE FLAWED 2020 BIOP ...........................19
STANDARD OF REVIEW ...........................................................................................................20
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................21
I. NWF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIMS AGAINST THE CORPS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ESA. .........................................21
A. The 2020 BiOp Is Built on an Illegal âIsolate-and-Compareâ Jeopardy Analysis..................................................................................................................23
1. The 2020 BiOp is built on an illegal isolate-and-compare jeopardy analysis that this Court has already rejected. .............................................24
2. The new regulatory definition of the âenvironmental baselineâ does not permit the Corps to avoid consultation on dam operations. ........25
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 64
ii
B. The 2020 BiOp Relies on an Illegal Not-Appreciably-Worse Jeopardy Standard. ................................................................................................................28
C. The 2020 BiOp Does Not Actually Account for the Effects of Climate Change. ..................................................................................................................32
1. The 2020 BiOp fails to rationally or legally determine whether the effects of the Proposed Action with climate change will cause jeopardy......................................................................................................32
2. The 2020 BiOpâs conclusion that the proposed action will mitigate for climate change cannot substitute for a jeopardy determination. ..........35
D. The 2020 BiOp Arbitrarily Fails to Give the Listed Species the Benefit of the Doubt. ...............................................................................................................37
E. The 2020 BiOp Fails to Use the Best Available Science and Fails to Provide a Rational Connection Between Its Analysis and Its No-Jeopardy Conclusion. ............................................................................................................39
1. The 2020 BiOp fails to use the best available science or rationally explain its quantitative analyses.................................................................40
2. The 2020 BiOp fails to rationally explain its no-jeopardy conclusion. .................................................................................................42
II. THE PRELIMINARY RELIEF NWF SEEKS WILL REDUCE IRREPARABLE HARM TO ESA-LISTED SALMON AND STEELHEAD AND IS NARROWLY TAILORED........................................................................................................................44
A. The Proposed Action Addressed in the 2020 BiOp Will Continue to Cause Irreparable Harm to ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead. ......................................45
B. Increased Voluntary Spill Will Reduce Irreparable Harm to Salmon and Steelhead. ...............................................................................................................47
C. Lowering Reservoir Levels as NWF Seeks Will Reduce Irreparable Harm to Salmon and Steelhead and Increase Their Survival. ..........................................50
D. The Court Should Grant NWF the Injunctive Relief It Seeks for the Corpsâ Violation of the ESA. .............................................................................................52
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................53
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 64
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
ALCOA v. BPA, 175 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................................29, 34
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................20
Cal. Trucking Assân v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................20
Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................33
Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................20
IDFG v. NMFS, 850 F. Supp. 886 (D. Or. 1994) ...............................................................................................29
League of Wilderness Defs./Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................21
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assân of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) .......................................................................................................33, 41, 44
Natâl Assân of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................41
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 508 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................21
NCAP v. EPA, 544 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................44
NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d 861 (D. Or. 2016) .................................................................................. passim
NWF v. NMFS, 422 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................47, 49
NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... passim
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 64
iv
NWF v. NMFS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Or. 2011) ............................................................................21, 49, 53
NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 1278878 (D. Or. May 26, 2005), affâd, 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. passim
NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 1398223 (D. Or. June 10, 2005), affâd in part, remanded in part, 422 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................47, 53
NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 2488447 (D. Or. Oct. 7, 2005) ..................................................4
NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-SI, 2017 WL 1829588 (D. Or. May 3, 2017), affâd in part, 866 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... passim
Pac. Coast Fedân of Fishermenâs Assoc. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................34, 36
Pimental v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................20
Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................20
Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................20
Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................21, 37, 39, 43
Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) ...........................................................................................................20, 39
Vierra v. Rubin, 915 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) ...........................................................................................27, 39
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .....................................................................................................................20
Statutes
16 U.S.C. § 1531 ............................................................................................................................32
16 U.S.C. § 1532 ............................................................................................................................32
16 U.S.C. § 1536 ............................................................................................................................42
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 64
v
Regulations
50 C.F.R. § 402.02 ................................................................................................................. passim
50 C.F.R. § 402.14 .............................................................................................................26, 34, 39
83 Fed. Reg. 35,182 (July 25, 2018) ..............................................................................................31
83 Fed. Reg. 35,183 .......................................................................................................................31
84 Fed. Reg. 44,976 (Aug. 27, 2019).......................................................................................25, 26
84 Fed. Reg. 44,978 .......................................................................................................................26
84 Fed. Reg. 44,979 .......................................................................................................................39
84 Fed. Reg. 44,980 .......................................................................................................................39
84 Fed. Reg. 44,987 .......................................................................................................................34
84 Fed. Reg. 45,016 .................................................................................................................26, 31
84 Fed. Reg. 45,017 .......................................................................................................................39
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 64
vi
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
2020 BiOp Biological Opinion for the Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Federal Columbia River Power System, July 24, 2020
2020 ROD Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement
Record of Decision, September, 2020 BA Biological Assessment CSS Comparative Survival Study CRS Columbia River System CRSO FEIS Columbia River System Operations Final Environmental Impact
Statement CRSO DEIS Columbia River System Operations Draft Environmental Impact
Statement ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team MOP Minimum Operating Pool MPG Major Population Group NAA No Action Alternative NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service PA Proposed Action QET Quasi-extinction threshold RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative R/S Recruits per spawner SAR Smolt-to-adult returns SR Snake River TDG Total dissolved gas
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 1 -
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Plaintiffs, National Wildlife Federation, et al. (âNWFâ), respectfully move the Court for
a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (âCorpsâ) to address
violations of the Endangered Species Act (âESAâ), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), arising from the
Corpsâ Joint Record of Decision for Columbia River System Operations (the â2020 RODâ),
dated September, 2020, and the Corpsâ reliance on the Biological Opinion for Continued
Operation and Maintenance of the Federal Columbia River Power System, dated July 24, 2020
(the â2020 BiOpâ).1
Specifically, NWF joins a motion by the State of Oregon for a preliminary injunction to
reduce irreparable harm to, and increase the survival of, ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia and Snake Rivers by requiring the Corps to:
(1) increase voluntary spring spill for 24 hours per day to the maximum level that meets
but does not exceed state water quality standards at the federal hydroelectric dams on
the lower Columbia and lower Snake Rivers, with the exception of spill at Little
Goose Dam, The Dalles Dam, and Bonneville as more specifically described herein
and by the State of Oregon, for the spring spill season, beginning in 2022;
(2) restore voluntary summer spill at all eight of these projects to the levels set in prior
BiOps for the entire summer spill season (i.e., through August 31st), beginning in
2022;
1 This motion does not address all of the claims in NWFâs Eighth Supplemental Complaint for violations of the ESA or any of its claims for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. NWF does not waive any of these claims and will address them in its motion for summary judgment in accordance with the Courtâs scheduling order.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 9 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 2 -
(3) provide continuous 24-hour voluntary spill from September 1 to the beginning of the
following spring spill season at all eight projects through the operation of at least one
spillway weir or other surface passage route, beginning in 2022;
(4) operate the four lower Snake River projects at their minimum operating pool
(âMOPâ) elevations with a one-foot operating range from March 1 through August
31, beginning in 2022; and,
(5) develop and submit to the Court by September 1, 2022, an implementation plan to
operate the four lower Columbia River reservoirs (above McNary, John Day, The
Dalles and Bonneville dams) at their MOP elevations with a one-foot operating range
from March 1 through June 15, beginning in 2023.
These spill and drawdown measures would remain in place until further order of the
Court.
NWF has conferred with counsel for Federal Defendants regarding this motion and
Federal Defendants have indicated they will oppose the motion. NWF has informed counsel for
intervenors and amici about this motion. NWF has not received responses from all parties and
amici at the time of filing. Of those that have responded, those intervenors and amici aligned
with Federal Defendants will also oppose the motion, and unaligned amici will set forth their
position in accordance with the briefing schedule the Court has set.2
This motion is based on NWFâs memorandum set out below, the declarations, exhibits,
and other papers submitted herewith, the State of Oregonâs motion for an injunction and
supporting papers, papers filed by the Nez Perce Tribe, the pleadings previously filed herein, and
such other evidence as the Court deems appropriate.
2 The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation takes no position on this motion.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 10 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 3 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION
Many species of ESA-listed Snake and Columbia River salmon and steelhead face
imminent extinction. For years these species have persisted at dangerously low abundance levels
and faced a highly precarious status, due in large part to harm caused by the Corpsâ operation of
the Columbia River System dams and reservoirs. See NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d 861, 870â
71, 890â91 (D. Or. 2016). In the five years since the Courtâs 2016 decision, the abundance of
these species has declined even further, in some cases sharply. Going forward, climate change
will continue to worsen conditions for these species. Analysis in the 2020 BiOp predicts that if
the effects of climate change unfold as expected, and Columbia River System operations
continue as planned in the 2020 ROD, many populations of ESA-listed Snake River salmon and
steelhead will likely become extinct within the very near future. See infra at 13â15.
Nonetheless, the Corps has concluded in the 2020 ROD, in reliance on the 2020 BiOp,
that the proposed ongoing operation of its Columbia River System dams and reservoirs will not
jeopardize the continued existence of any species of salmon or steelhead listed for protection
under the ESA. NWF seeks a preliminary injunction against the Corps for violations of the ESA
because the âno-jeopardyâ finding in the 2020 BiOp and 2020 ROD is illegal and arbitrary.
NWF is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims because the 2020 BiOp: (1) relies on a
comparative jeopardy analysis that does not account for the effects of ongoing or past actions
rationally or legally; (2) employs an illegal jeopardy standard that fails to rationally assess risks
to survival and recovery; (3) fails to rationally or legally account for the effects of advancing
climate change; (4) fails to give the benefit of the doubt to the listed species; and (5) fails to
explain rationally or legally its no-jeopardy conclusion using the best available scientific
information.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 11 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 4 -
The Court is familiar with each of these issues because it has ruled against the Corps on
each of them in prior decisions. Since 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service (âNMFSâ)
has issued, and the Corps has relied on, a series of biological opinions intended to comply with
the ESA, each of which has been held unlawful by this Court. See NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp.
3d at 877â882. The 2020 BiOp repeats many of the errors the Court has already held unlawful.
For example, in its opinion rejecting the 2004 BiOp and accompanying ROD, the Court held that
the 2004 BiOp employed an improper comparative jeopardy analysis, relied on an illegal
jeopardy standard, failed to account for the effects of past actions, and failed to address risks to
recovery. NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 1278878 at *9â13 (D. Or. May 26,
2005), affâd, 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008). In its opinion rejecting the 2008/2014 BiOp and
accompanying ROD, the Court held that the 2008/2014 BiOp failed to properly consider risks to
recovery, failed to give listed species the benefit of the doubt by relying on uncertain habitat
benefits, and failed to rationally or legally address climate change. NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp.
3d at 887â910, 914â924. Remarkably, despite repeated instruction from the Court, the 2020
BiOp misinterprets and misapplies the requirements of the ESA and its implementing regulations
in the same ways the Court previously rejected. As the Court observed more than 15 years ago,
â[s]uch a dysfunction of government is not a rational option.â NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-
RE, 2005 WL 2488447 at *3 (D. Or. Oct. 7, 2005).
A preliminary injunction is urgently needed to reduce irreparable harm to ESA-listed
salmon and steelhead from operation of the Corpsâ eight lower Snake and lower Columbia River
dams pursuant to the 2020 BiOp and 2020 ROD. The condition of the species affected by the
operation of these dams, especially those that originate from the Snake River basin, has
deteriorated further even since the Court last considered a motion for an injunction from NWF
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 12 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 5 -
and Oregon. 2020 BiOp at 111 (Snake River spring/summer Chinook); id. at 306, 440, 544
(other Snake River species); see also NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-SI, 2017 WL 1829588 at
*5â7 (D. Or. Apr. 3, 2017), affâd in part, 866 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018) (granting in part NWFâs
motion for an injunction and noting the dire condition of the species at that time). The
preliminary relief NWF now seeks will reduce (but not eliminate) this ongoing and irreparable
harm. Specifically, increased voluntary spill at the dams and the actions to lower reservoir
elevations will, separately and in combination, reduce salmon and steelhead mortality and
increase their survival over the levels that would occur under the dam operations the Corps
proposes pursuant to the 2020 ROD and 2020 BiOp.
BACKGROUND
The Court is already familiar with the legal framework and long procedural history of the
Corpsâ and other agenciesâ repeated failure to comply with the ESA. See, e.g., NWF v. NMFS,
184 F. Supp. 3d at 877â882; see also NWFâs Amended Eighth Supplemental Complaint at ¶¶
75â77 (filed Jan. 20, 2021) (ECF 2311) (providing additional background information since the
Courtâs rejection of the 2014 BiOp).3
The 2020 BiOp is the latest attempt by the Corps and other Federal Defendants to comply
with the ESA. The 2020 BiOp concludes that the Corpsâ Proposed Action (or âPAâ) for
continued operation of the Columbia River System dams, reservoirs, and related measures over
the next 15 years will not jeopardize any listed species of salmon or steelhead or adversely
3 After the Courtâs opinion rejecting the 2008/2014 BiOp, parties to this case reached an interim 2019-2021 Spill Operation Agreement to avoid litigation until the completion of the Court-ordered remand process. See ECF 2298-1 (filed Dec. 18, 2018). On the basis of this Agreement, the parties notified the Court that they would not pursue further legal challenges for the term of the Agreement. NWF and others did not agree that dam operations under the Agreement â or the subsequently issued 2019 BiOp addressing those operations â were adequate to comply with the ESA. Id. at 1, 9.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 13 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 6 -
modify their critical habitat. The Corpsâ 2020 ROD adopts the PA as the Selected Alternative,
and relies on the 2020 BiOp to establish compliance with the ESA for this final action.4 NWF
describes below the main components of the analysis in the 2020 BiOp that lead to this arbitrary
and illegal no-jeopardy conclusion.
I. THE NEW (OLD) STRUCTURE OF THE 2020 BIOP JEOPARDY ANALYSIS
The 2020 BiOp describes the Proposed Action for consultation as âthe continued
operation and maintenance of the [Columbia River System (âCRSâ)] dams; tributary and estuary
habitat mitigation programs; conservation and safety net hatchery programs; predator
management programs; and research, monitoring, and evaluation programs.â 2020 BiOp at 45;
see also id. at 47 (agencies propose âto continue operating and maintaining the 14 Federal CRS
projects to meet congressionally authorized purposesâ).5 The 2020 BiOp explains that the full
suite of operational and other measures in the Proposed Action (âPAâ) are those described for
the Preferred Alternative in the Columbia River System Operation Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (the âCRSO DEISâ). Id. at 95; see also Action Agency Biological Assessment
(âBAâ) at 1â10.
The Corpsâ Proposed Action continues past operations of the CRS with only modest
changes. See 2020 BiOp at 46â91 (describing the Proposed Action). For example, the PA
continues the âflexible spillâ operations from the interim Flexible Spill Agreement. Id. at 54â56.
Under this Agreement, the action agencies may balance periods of higher voluntary spill in the
spring to aid fish passage with periods of lower spill to increase revenues from power generation.
4 The Selected Alternative is also the same as the Preferred Alternative from the Corpsâ Columbia River System Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement (âCRSO FEISâ). 5 In this motion, NWF refers to these dams as the âCRS damsâ rather than the âFCRPSâ to be consistent with the acronyms in the 2020 BiOp and 2020 ROD.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 14 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 7 -
The PA makes some significant changes to these spill operations, however, for example by
including an earlier termination of summer spill. Id. at 57â58. The PA also specifies these spill
operations for only one yearâ2021. Thereafter, spill operations are subject to change through a
loosely-defined adaptive management framework. Id. at 55â56. Other changes between the PA
and past operations include, but are not limited to, increased reservoir elevations at some dams
and authorization for some dam turbines to operate above a 1% efficiency range under certain
circumstances. Id. at 58â59, 61â63. The shortened spill seasons, increased reservoir operating
ranges, and changes in turbine operations, among other actions, are all expected to harm juvenile
and/or adult salmon migration. Infra at 47â52.
A. The 2020 BiOp Compares the Effects of the Proposed Action to the Effects of Prior, Illegal Operations.
While the 2020 BiOp describes the Proposed Action as the âcontinued operationâ of the
CRS dams, 2020 BiOp at 45, the BiOpâs jeopardy analysis actually defines the effects of the
Proposed Action far more narrowly. Instead of analyzing the full effects of the continued
operation of the CRS as the effects of the Proposed Action, the 2020 BiOp compares the effects
of the Proposed Action to the effects of prior CRS operations, and treats only the limited
differences between the two as the effects of the Proposed Action. The BiOp assigns all other
effects of past and ongoing CRS operations to the âenvironmental baseline.â Specifically, the
2020 BiOp uses the effects of operations under the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)
from the illegal 2014 BiOp, which is the âno-actionâ alternative in the CRSO DEIS, as the
environmental baseline for purposes of its comparative analysis.6
6 The agencies refer to operations under the RPA from the 2014 BiOp, alternatively, as the âno-action alternativeâ from the CRSO DEIS, â2016 operations,â ârecent conditions,â and âcurrent conditions.â
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 15 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 8 -
The 2020 BiOp is explicit that this comparison between the PA and prior operations is
the basis for identifying the effects of the PA in the jeopardy analysis. For example, the BiOp
concludes that the Proposed Action will have little effect on river flows compared to prior
operations. See, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 194 (âFlow changes downstream of Grand Coulee will be
within 2 percent of current conditions.â). The BiOp then concludes that the PAâs effect on river
flows will not harm salmon, based on this comparison of the PA to prior operations. See id.
(âThe proposed change in flow would be too small to affect river temperature during the adult
migration period . . . . The associated effects on SR spring/summer Chinook smolts or adults
should not change from recent conditions by a meaningful amountâ).
In contrast, the 2020 BiOp includes in the environmental baseline (but not the effects of
the PA) the substantially altered and reduced river flows caused by ongoing CRS operations that
have âsignificantly degraded salmon and steelhead habitats.â 2020 BiOp at 126. Likewise, the
environmental baseline also incorporates the repeated failure to meet seasonal flow objectives,
and the effects of that failure on juvenile salmon. Id. at 128 (âFrom 1998 to 2019, seasonal
spring flow objectives were met or exceeded . . . during 48 percent of years at Lower Granite
Dam.â); id. (âwhen seasonal flow objectives are not met, juvenile survival may be reducedâ).
Because the environmental baseline forms one bookend for the 2020 BiOpâs comparative
analysis, the BiOp does not consider as an effect of the Proposed Action the harm to salmon and
steelhead caused by these dramatically altered river flows and consistent failures to meet
seasonal flow objectives. For example, in the integration and synthesis discussion for Snake
River spring/summer Chinook, the 2020 BiOp concludes that â[t]he proposed actionâthe future
operation and maintenance of the CRS . . . will have little overall effect on the seasonal
hydrograph or seasonal temperatures compared to recent conditions.â 2020 BiOp at 290
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 16 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 9 -
(emphasis added). Compare id. at 127 (graph showing the major difference between unregulated
river flow and âcurrentâ CRS operations as part of the environmental baseline) with id. at 194
(graph showing the minor difference between the no action alternative and the PA as part of the
effects of the action).
Similarly, the 2020 BiOp concludes that the spill operations in the PA will have a
minimal effect on juvenile Snake River spring/summer Chinook by comparing the spill
operations under the PA to prior operations. Specifically, the 2020 BiOp notes that âthe flexible
spring spill operation (Proposed Action), compared to the No Action Alternativeâ would slightly
increase juvenile survival for Snake River spring/summer Chinook from 42.7 to 42.8 percent,
reduce travel time, reduce the proportion of fish transported, and reduce overall smolt-to-adult
returns from 0.88 to 0.81 percent. 2020 BiOp at 240â41. See also id. at 95 (explaining that the
model used in the 2020 BiOp is an inherently comparative tool). Accordingly, the BiOpâs
conclusion that the PA will cause in-river juvenile survival rates for this species to âincrease
slightlyâ is based on a comparison of spill operations under the PA to prior spill operations. Id.
at 285; see also id. at 290.7
At the same time, the 2020 BiOp includes in the environmental baseline the significant
mortality to juvenile and adult salmon from ongoing CRS operations (and other causes). See
2020 BiOp at 139â43 (including in the environmental baseline the average minimum survival
estimates from Bonneville Dam to Lower Granite Dam from 2010 to 2019 for Snake River
spring/summer Chinook for both returning adults and smolts). This mortality is substantial: only
7 The Corpsâ Biological Assessment on which the 2020 BiOp is based also analyzes the effects of the PA by comparing the PA to prior operations. See, e.g., BA at 3-192 & Table 3-24 (modeling shows smolt survival would increase under the PA, based on comparison between the âNAA [No Action Alternative] (2016 Operations)â and â[t]he preferred alternativeâ from the CRSO DEIS).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 17 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 10 -
around 83 percent of adult Snake River spring/summer Chinook survive their upstream migration
through eight CRS dams. Id. at 139. Juvenile mortality is far higher: while estimates vary, in
recent years less than half of juvenile Snake River spring/summer Chinook have survived their
downstream migration through eight CRS dams. Id. at 142â43.
The 2020 BiOp does not consider this substantial adult and juvenile mortality, caused in
large part by ongoing CRS operations, as an effect of the PA. In discussing the effects of the PA,
the BiOp predicts that adult survival rates for Snake River spring/summer Chinook will
âcontinue to averageâ about 83 percent from Bonneville Dam to Lower Granite Dam. 2020
BiOp at 198. For smolts, the BiOp predicts that the survival of in-river migrating salmon will
âincrease slightlyâ from 42.7 to 42.8 percent. Id. at 241; see also id. at 201. Based on this
comparative assessment, the BiOp ultimately concludes that the PA will likely âimproveâ dam
passage survival for this species. Id. at 290.
In other words, the 2020 BiOp assigns to the environmental baseline all of the substantial
mortality and other harm from the ongoing operation of the CRS, and only assigns to the
Proposed Action any changes in these high mortality rates and other harmful effects relative to
prior operations.8 The BiOp then evaluates only these minor changes to determine whether the
PA will jeopardize listed species.
B. The 2020 BiOp Uses a âNot-Appreciably-Worseâ Jeopardy Standard.
To reach a jeopardy determination for the limited effects it assigns to the Proposed
8 The 2020 BiOp is not always explicit about its exclusion of the effects of past and ongoing operations from the effects of the PA. For example, in the discussion of the effects of the PA on Snake River spring/summer Chinook, the BiOp notes that â[t]he effects of CRS operations will include continued reduced flows in the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers during the months of May through July.â 2020 BiOp at 193. But when it turns to assessing effects on salmon and steelhead, the BiOp repeatedly concludes that the change from prior conditions will be minimal, and so the effects of the PA on salmon will be negligible. See, e.g., id. at 194.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 18 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 11 -
Action, the 2020 BiOp evaluates whether those effects will appreciably worsen the speciesâ
current condition. Specifically, the 2020 BiOp explains that so long as the changes between the
PA and prior operations will not appreciably reduce the speciesâ current reproduction, numbers,
or distribution, the PA will not jeopardize either survival or recovery.
This standard is a marked departure from the 2008/2014 BiOp and the 2000 BiOp, which
relied on various population growth metrics and trends in their jeopardy analyses to assess the
effects of the CRS on the speciesâ likelihood of survival and recovery. See 2020 BiOp at 44â45.
Specifically, the 2008/2014 BiOp examined whether âpopulations were expected to replace
themselves and grow over time.â Id. In contrast, the 2020 BiOp states that this analysis of
population trends is not ârequired by the plain language of the ESA, or our implementing
regulations.â Id. The 2019 BiOp (issued after the parties agreed not to pursue litigation during
the 2014 BiOp remand period) is even more direct:
In applying the ESA and our implementing regulations, we reiterate our long-standing interpretation that section 7(a)(2) does not require that a proposed action result in an improvement to species status, growth rates, or other metrics to demonstrate compliance with section 7(a)(2). A standard requiring an improvement to species status, growth rates, or other metrics would be contrary to the plain language of section 7(a)(2), which only requires agencies to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize âthe continued existenceâ of listed species. That standard also would be contrary to our 1986 regulations, which interpret section 7(a)(2) as being violated only where the action causes reductions to the speciesâ âreproduction, numbers, or distributionâ to the degree of reducing appreciably the speciesâ likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild. In accord, neither the ESA nor our implementing regulations require that a proposed action or RPA result in populations or species being on a trend toward recovery, or otherwise result in improvements that would ensure survival of a species or improve the potential for recovery.
2019 BiOp at 26â27 (emphasis added). The 2020 BiOp cites and relies on this discussion of the
ESAâs requirements from the 2019 BiOp. See 2020 BiOp at 45.
Relying on this new standard, the 2020 BiOp concludes that the limited effects it ascribes
to the PA will not cause jeopardy because the PA will likely either modestly improve or at least
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 19 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 12 -
not appreciably reduce any listed speciesâ current reproduction, numbers, or distribution when
compared with prior dam operations. For example, the 2020 BiOp finds that in-river survival
rates for juvenile Snake River spring/summer Chinook will âincrease slightlyâ from 42.7 to 42.8
percent as a result of âincreased spring spill levels with the flexible spill operation [under the
PA] compared to the No Action Alternative.â 2020 BiOp at 241; id. at 285 (citing the CRSO
DEIS analysis). The BiOp does not discuss whether an in-river survival rate of 42.8 percent is
likely to appreciably reduce the speciesâ ability to actually survive and eventually recover.
Even where the 2020 BiOp recognizes that some aspects of the PA will likely adversely
affect one or more listed species, it still concludes that the overall effects of the PA, as compared
to prior operations, will either improve or not appreciably worsen the current condition of the
species. For example, the BiOp acknowledges the harm to Snake River sockeye from two
operational changes under the Proposed Action as compared to past operations: increased
reservoir elevations above John Day Dam and modified turbine operations. See, e.g., 2020 BiOp
at 511â12. Nonetheless, the BiOp concludes that â[a]ltogether, recent (2008 to 2019) adult
survival rates would be expected to continue at similar levels under the proposed action because
the minor improvements and impairments [under the PA as compared to prior operations]
should, on the whole, result in no substantial differences that would measurably affect survival
rates.â Id. at 512; see also id. at 201 (concluding that changes in turbine operations would not
âmeasurably reduce[]â Snake River spring/summer Chinook adult survival rates âat the
population, MPG, or ESU levelâ). Again, the 2020 BiOp does not discuss whether maintaining
these survival rates is likely to appreciably reduce the speciesâ ability to actually survive and
eventually recover.
Relying on these and similar assessments that the PA will âimproveâ or at least maintain
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 20 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 13 -
recent conditions, the 2020 BiOp concludes in nearly identical language for each listed species
that âthe effects of the action will not cause reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distributionâ
of any listed species and so will not cause jeopardy. See, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 291 (Snake River
spring/summer Chinook); id. at 428 (Snake River steelhead); id. at 534 (Snake River sockeye);
id. at 640 (Snake River fall Chinook).
C. The 2020 BiOp Does Not Evaluate Whether the Proposed Action With the Advancing Effects of Climate Change Will Cause Jeopardy to ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead.
The 2020 BiOp discusses the effects of the Proposed Action in combination with
advancing climate change and concludes that these effects will be devastating for salmonids.
The BiOp, however, does not address whether the PA will jeopardize listed species in a warming
world. Instead, the 2020 BiOp concludes that these harmful effects are not caused by the PA and
that the PA will help âmitigateâ for the effects of climate change to some unspecified degree.
The majority of the 2020 BiOpâs analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action assumes a
stable climate, not a warming one. See, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 97 (life cycle models represent recent
climate conditions, using data from the last 20 years). In a separate section for each species, the
2020 BiOp presents an analysis of the effects of the PA in combination with the effects of
advancing climate change. For Snake River spring/summer Chinook, the 2020 BiOp includes a
quantitative analysis of these effects. See id. at 242â79; see also infra at 32â37. For all other
species/ESUs, the BiOp only includes a brief qualitative discussion of the effects of climate
change. See, e.g., id. at 445â51 (Snake River sockeye); id. at 657â63, 743 (upper Columbia
spring/summer Chinook).
The quantitative analysis for Snake River spring/summer Chinook that predicts the
effects of the PA in a warming climate shows alarming declines in abundance of every
population analyzed. See 2020 BiOp at 246â47, 256, 264â65. The 2020 BiOp acknowledges
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 21 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 14 -
that â[d]eclines of this magnitude . . . would threaten to extirpate a large number of small
populations, and would substantially reduce the abundance and productivity of larger
populations.â Id. at 275. The BiOp notes that â[t]he threat to larger populations (substantially
reduced abundance and productivity) causes even greater concern because they are the remaining
salmon strongholds, which provide genetic and demographic resilience for the ESU as a whole.â
Id. at 276.
The 2020 BiOpâs conclusions on likely extinction risks are similarly alarming. For
example, for the Middle Fork Salmon River Major Population Group of Snake River
spring/summer Chinook, the 2020 BiOp predicts that the Proposed Action with climate change
âsubstantially increase[s] the probability of falling below the [quasi-extinction] threshold for all
six populations. The median probability increased to between 93 and 100 percent for the three
smaller populations . . . . The median probabilities also increased substantially for the larger
populations, ranging from 67 to 85 percent with the proposed action scenario, and from 50 to 72
percent [using alternative assumptions].â 2020 BiOp at 257. This means that in a warming
world, it ranges from likely to virtually certain that implementing the PA will lead to every
population of the Middle Fork Salmon River Major Population Group falling below the Quasi-
Extinction Threshold within the next 24 years. Id.
The 2020 BiOp concludes that climate change âposes a substantial threat to [Snake
River] spring/summer Chinook salmon.â Id. at 279. It finds, however, that the low abundances
and high extinction risks shown by modeling the Proposed Action in a warming world âare not
caused by, nor will they be exacerbated by, the continued operation and maintenance of the
CRS.â Id. Instead, the 2020 BiOp asserts that implementation of the âproposed non-operational
conservation measures (tributary habitat and estuary habitat restoration, and predator
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 22 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 15 -
management) should . . . contribute to resilience in the freshwater life history stages.â Id.; see
also id. at 291 (âThe proposed action is expected to reduce both the scope and severity of those
impacts [of climate change] and not exacerbate them.â).
In short, the 2020 BiOp predicts that the Proposed Action in combination with climate
change will cause at least a severe depletion of every population of Snake River spring/summer
Chinook analyzed. However, the BiOp never actually determines whether the effects of the PA
with climate change will avoid jeopardy because the BiOp attributes these devastating effects to
climate change alone. Instead, the BiOp answers a different questionâwhether the PA will
âmitigateâ the impacts of climate change on the listed species to some unspecified extent as
compared to prior CRS operations.
D. The 2020 BiOp Relies on Benefits From Unspecified and Uncertain Habitat Improvement Actions.
The 2020 BiOp includes in the Proposed Action continuing tributary and estuary habitat
mitigation programs to improve habitat for salmonids. See 2020 BiOp at 74â77. The BiOp does
not list the specific habitat actions that will be included in these programs, however. Instead, the
BiOp notes that the Corps (and other action agencies) âwill develop, with input from NMFS, a
series of prospective 5-year implementation plans that outline the specific actions the Action
Agencies intend to implement in that timeframe.â Id. at 76.
The 2020 BiOp relies in part on the projected benefits from these unspecified habitat
improvement actions to support its conclusion that the PA will not jeopardize any listed species
of salmon or steelhead. See, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 286 (concluding that â[i]mplementation of the
tributary habitat actions analyzed in this opinion, if implemented as described in the proposed
action, will provide additional near-term and long-term benefits to the targeted populations by
improving tributary habitat in the manner and timeframes outlined [above]â); id. at 210â12
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 23 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 16 -
(Table 2.2-18, describing generally the benefits of tributary habitat improvement actions); see
also, e.g., id. at 424 (noting unspecified âadditional benefitsâ for Snake River steelhead from
continuation of tributary habitat actions under the PA).
The BiOpâs quantitative analyses also incorporate the projected effects of these future,
unspecified habitat improvement actions. See, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 224 (âMany of these Snake
River spring/summer Chinook salmon populations have been targeted for habitat restoration
actions . . . . Estimated effects of habitat improvements were incorporated into the model at
years 5, 10, and 15. This reflects a reasonable assumption about the implementation timing of
the proposed action.â); see also id. at 226, 286.
These predicted benefits are not based on specific habitat actions, because those actions
will be identified in plans that have not yet been developed. Id. at 76. Instead, these predicted
benefits are based on general habitat goals. See, e.g., BA at 2â98 (Table 2-19 identifying broad
habitat metrics for Snake River spring/summer Chinook); id. at App. D (similar tables and
additional narrative but no specific projects); see also 2020 BiOp at 75 (incorporating this
analysis). On the basis of these broad goals and not-yet-developed implementation plans, the
BiOp concludes that the PA âis likely to improve . . . degraded tributary and estuary habitat.â Id.
at 290; see also id. at 291 (concluding that âimprovement actionsâ will increase âecosystem
functionsâ in tributary and estuary habitats).
E. The 2020 BiOp Fails to Explain How Its Quantitative or Qualitative Analyses Support Its No Jeopardy Conclusion.
The 2020 BiOp ultimately concludes that the PA will not jeopardize any listed species of
salmon or steelhead. The BiOp provides a quantitative analysis of the effects of the PA for some
species before reaching this conclusion. Specifically, for Snake River spring/summer Chinook,
the 2020 BiOp includes a quantitative analysis of the effects of the PA using NOAAâs
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 24 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 17 -
COMPASS and lifecycle (LCM) models. See 2020 BiOp at 95â97. The BiOp also includes a
limited quantitative analysis for some other species, e.g. id. at 398â99 (Snake River steelhead);
id. at 741â44 (Upper Columbia River spring Chinook), but not others, e.g. id. at 514 (Snake
River sockeye).
The BiOpâs quantitative analysis for Snake River spring/summer Chinook uses two
metrics to predict the effects of the PA on this species. First, it predicts average population
abundance over 24 years. 2020 BiOp at 223. Second, it predicts the risk a population will fall
below a quasi-extinction threshold (âQETâ) of 50 fish per year for four consecutive years during
the next 24 years. Id. The BiOp notes that once a population drops below this QET threshold, it
becomes increasingly unlikely that adult fish will be able to find spawning partners, and
increasingly likely that other factors could fully extirpate the population. Id.
The 2020 BiOp presents the predicted effects of the PA on abundance and QET risk for
each population of Snake River spring/summer Chinook, assuming a stable climate. Id. at 223â
42.9 The BiOp notes that in most cases the models predict that the PA will cause some
improvement in population abundance as compared to current abundance (under stable climate
conditions). See, e.g., id. at 240. The BiOp also reports a wide range of QET risk over 24 years,
ranging from a 0% risk for some larger populations (when including both natural and hatchery
spawners), id. at 237, up to a 94% risk for smaller populations (including only natural spawners),
id. at 229, again assuming a stable climate.
The 2020 BiOp also presents model results that incorporate a warming climate.
9 In some instances the 2020 BiOp models the QET and abundance parameters for populations twice, first for hatchery and natural origin spawners combined, and then for only the natural origin spawners. E.g. 2020 BiOp at 227â29 (Grande Ronde River MPG). Only naturally spawned Snake River spring/summer Chinook and steelhead are protected under the ESA. See id. at 99 (spring/summer Chinook), 295 (steelhead).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 25 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 18 -
Specifically, the BiOp presents the effects of the PA on abundance and QET risk for each
population of Snake River spring/summer Chinook assuming a warming climate. 2020 BiOp at
242â79. This analysis shows dramatic declines in abundance and dramatic increases in QET risk
for every population analyzed. Id.; see also supra at 13â15.
For each population, under stable and warming climate conditions, the 2020 BiOp also
includes as an âalternativeâ set of abundance and QET risk model results which incorporate an
across-the-board 35% productivity increase. E.g., id. at 233. The BiOp states that this 35%
productivity increase is âhypothesizedâ and so not certain to occur. See id. at 224, 241.10
While the 2020 BiOp reports the abundance levels predicted by its models under a variety
of scenarios, it does not state what level of abundance would be so low that it would constitute
an appreciable reduction in the speciesâ likelihood of survival and recovery. Similarly, the BiOp
reports QET risk under a variety of scenarios, but it does not state what level of QET risk would
be too high and lead to a jeopardy finding. Nor does the BiOp rely on any external benchmarks
(such as population performance standards or minimum viable abundance numbers, see infra at
40â44) against which to judge the abundance and QET risk it predicts for the PA. And it does
not otherwise explicitly connect these quantitative estimates of abundance and QET risk to the
speciesâ likelihood of survival and eventual recovery.11
The 2020 BiOp ultimately does not explain how the various qualitative and quantitative
10 The 2020 BiOp claims that this 35% productivity increase is a way to account for reductions in latent mortality consistent with the âhypothesisâ of the Fish Passage Centerâs Comparative Survival Study (âCSSâ) that smolts that pass over the dams instead of through the turbines or bypass systems experience reduced latent mortality in the ocean. See 2020 BiOp at 241. 11 The 2020 BiOp also provides qualitative analyses of factors such as estuary habitat actions and avian predation that prior BiOps have assessed quantitatively. Compare 2020 BiOp at 206â08; id. at 218â20 with NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 903â904 (discussing estuary habitat analysis); id. at 926â927 (discussing analysis of avian predation).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 26 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 19 -
factors it considers are weighted or combined to support a no-jeopardy finding. Instead, in its
concluding âIntegration and Synthesisâ discussion, the 2020 BiOp describes in broad terms some
of the ways in which the PA will affect salmon, in comparison to prior dam operations. 2020
BiOp at 283â91 (Snake River spring/summer Chinook). It notes that âthe proposed action
includes some elements that will harm salmonids and some that will benefit salmonids.â Id. at
290. The BiOp also notes that the Proposed Action combined with current and future climate
change poses a profound threat to the listed species. Id. at 291. It then concludes that the
Proposed Action will not jeopardize any of the listed species of salmon and steelhead. Id. at
290â91 (no-jeopardy finding for Snake River spring/summer Chinook); see also, e.g., id. at 528â
34 (Snake River sockeye); id. at 748â55 (Upper Columbia River spring Chinook).
* * *
In sum, the 2020 BiOp concludes that the operation of the CRS will not jeopardize any
listed species of salmon or steelhead. 2020 BiOp Cover Letter. This conclusion is founded on a
comparative analysis that assigns the harm from past and ongoing CRS operations to the
environmental baseline, a not-appreciably-worse jeopardy standard, a dismissal of climate
impacts, assumed benefits from unspecified habitat actions, and a quantitative and qualitative
analysis that is neither explained nor connected to the future prospects of the species.
II. THE CORPSâ 2020 ROD IS BASED ON THE FLAWED 2020 BIOP
The Corps owns and operates the eight dams and reservoirs on the lower Snake and lower
Columbia Rivers. In the 2020 ROD, the Corps adopts the âSelected Alternativeâ as its plan for
CRS operations and associated actions, which is the same as the Proposed Action described in
the 2020 BiOp (and the Preferred Alternative in the CRSO FEIS). 2020 ROD at 2. As it has
done in the past, the Corps relies on the 2020 BiOp to establish its compliance with the ESA
without any separate, independent, or different analysis. See, e.g., id. at 44â45, 54; cf. NWF v.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 27 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 20 -
NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *5 (concluding that the Corps violated the ESA by relying on the
2014 BiOp without conducting any independent analysis of whether its actions complied with
the ESA), affâd 866 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Ninth Circuit recognizes two standards for granting preliminary injunctive relief.
Under the first, plaintiffs must establish that: (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they
are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Cal. Trucking Assân v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644, 652 (9th
Cir. 2021). Second, the Circuit also recognizes a âsliding scaleâ standard for preliminary relief
where âa stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.â Hernandez
v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Pimental v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096,
1105 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)); All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134
(9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the sliding scale test remains viable post Winter). â[W]here there
are only âserious questions going to the meritsââthat is, less than a âlikelihood of successâ on the
meritsâa preliminary injunction may still issue so long as âthe balance of hardships tips sharply
in the plaintiffâs favorâ and the other two factors are satisfied.â Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 888
(9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2018)).
In ESA cases, these standards are modified. Specifically, the equitable balancing of
hardships and the public interest factors always favor an injunction to protect the listed species
because the âplain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend
toward species extinction, whatever the cost,â and thus âthe balance has been struck in favor of
affording endangered species the highest of priorities . . . .â Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S.
153, 184, 194 (1978); see also NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *3 (explaining ESA
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 28 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 21 -
injunction standard); NWF v. NMFS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1130â31 (D. Or. 2011) (ââIn
Congressâs view, projects that jeopardize[] the continued existence of endangered species
threaten incalculable harm: accordingly, it decided that the balance of hardships and the public
interest tip heavily in favor of endangered species.ââ) (quoting Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d
1376 (9th Cir. 1987)).
For the reasons described below, NWF is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims
against the Corps, and the relief NWF and Oregon seek will reduce the irreparable harm to listed
salmon and steelhead that would otherwise occur under the illegal 2020 BiOp and 2020 ROD.
This relief also is narrowly tailored to address this harm. League of Wilderness Defs./Blue
Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 767 (9th Cir. 2014)
(ââ[i]njunctive relief must be tailored to remedy the specific harm allegedâ . . .â) (quoting Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 508 F.3d 885, 886 (9th Cir. 2007)).12
ARGUMENT
I. NWF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIMS AGAINST THE CORPS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ESA.
NWF is likely to succeed on the merits of its ESA claims against the Corps because the
2020 BiOp is built on an analysis and structure the Court has already rejected as inconsistent
with the ESA and its implementing regulationsâin many cases more than onceâand the 2020
ROD relies on the 2020 BiOp to establish compliance with the ESA.
First, the 2020 BiOpâs jeopardy analysis improperly focuses on the effects of the
Proposed Action isolated from and compared to the effects of past dam operations. The Court
12 NWF continues to have standing to pursue its claims against the Corps based on injury to its membersâ interests in Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead. See Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Bogaard and Supplemental Declaration of Liz Hamilton (filed concurrently).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 29 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 22 -
has previously rejected as contrary to the ESA this kind of âisolate-and-compareâ jeopardy
analysis. See NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL 1278878 at *9â13 (âCourts have rejected NOAAâs
comparative approach in jeopardy analyses.â) (citations omitted). The BiOp relies on a revised
regulatory definition of the âenvironmental baselineâ to support this comparative analysis, but
nothing in this new definition insulates the Corpsâ discretionary operation of the CRS from the
ESAâs consultation requirement. The result of this illegal comparative approach is to exclude
from the Proposed Action the effects of more than two decades of illegal action under prior
proposed actions and RPAs. This attempt at legal alchemyâtransforming the illegal into the
legalâin the face of a series of adverse Court decisions should be rejected.
Second, the 2020 BiOp employs a jeopardy standard that only considers whether the
Proposed Action will appreciably reduce the speciesâ current reproduction, numbers or
distribution. Courts have uniformly rejected this ânot-appreciably-worseâ jeopardy standard.
See NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2008) (âUnder this approach, a listed species
could be gradually destroyed, so long as each step on the path to destruction is sufficiently
modest. This type of slow slide into oblivion is one of the very ills the ESA seeks to prevent.â).
Relying on this illegal standard, the BiOp fails to rationally analyze the PAâs effect on the listed
speciesâ likelihood of survival and eventual recovery, as the ESA requires. See 50 C.F.R. §
402.02.
Third, the 2020 BiOp does not determine whether the Proposed Action will avoid
jeopardy in a future that includes climate changeâin other words, the real world. The BiOp
candidly reports that the Proposed Action together with climate change will lead to at least the
severe depletion of every population of listed salmon it analyzes. Instead of concluding that the
PA will cause jeopardy in a warming world, however, the BiOp repeats a familiar error by
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 30 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 23 -
asserting instead that the measures in the Proposed Action will mitigate the effects of climate
change to some unspecified extent. See NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 917â924 (discussing
failure of the 2014 BiOp to account for the effects of the 2014 RPA with climate impacts).
Fourth, the 2020 BiOp fails to give the benefit of the doubt to the listed species by relying
on unspecified and uncertain habitat mitigation actions, despite the Courtâs rejection of this
approach in prior BiOps. See id. at 906, 910 (failure to give species the benefit of the doubt).
Finally, the 2020 BiOp fails to use the best currently available scientific information in its
jeopardy analysis or provide a rational explanation for its ultimate no-jeopardy conclusion. The
Court has also addressed these failures in prior illegal BiOps. See id. at 891 (failure to use best
available science).
A. The 2020 BiOp Is Built on an Illegal âIsolate-and-Compareâ Jeopardy Analysis.
The 2020 BiOp reaches the first no-jeopardy finding for dam operations since the 2004
BiOp that this Court and the Ninth Circuit both firmly rejected. See NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL
1278878, affâd, 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008). The no-jeopardy finding in the 2020 BiOp has
very little to do with the nature of the actions it considers, which continue largely unchanged
CRS operations that have failed to comply with the ESA for decades and brought salmon and
steelhead populations to the brink of extinction. Instead, the 2020 BiOpâs no-jeopardy finding is
the result of yet another change in approach to evaluating jeopardy. This latest change is not
really new, however. Rather, it is a return to the comparative jeopardy analysis of the illegal
2004 BiOp.
This comparative framework fails for two reasons. First, the Court has already rejected it
as contrary to the ESA. Second, the Corpsâ operation of the CRS is discretionary, and nothing in
the revised regulatory definition of the âenvironmental baselineâ allows the Corps to assign the
effects of decades of illegal actions to the baseline for its comparative jeopardy analysis.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 31 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 24 -
1. The 2020 BiOp is built on an illegal isolate-and-compare jeopardy analysis that this Court has already rejected.
The 2020 BiOp is built on a comparison of the effects of the Proposed Action to the
effects of prior dam operations, see supra at 7â10, but this âisolate-and-compareâ analysis is no
more legal today than it was when this Court first rejected it in 2005. NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL
1278878. In that opinion, the Court reviewed and rejected an attempt to base a jeopardy analysis
on the net difference in effects between two courses of action: the Proposed Action and a
hypothetical âreference operationâ that represented a version of prior dam operations. The Court
squarely rejected this âisolate-and-compareâ analysis:
What NOAA has in effect done in the 2004 BiOp is compare the proposed action to the share of the proposed action it chose to re-categorize as part of the environmental baseline, rather than properly evaluating the proposed action in its entirety. NOAA then proceeded with an analysis it has not used in prior biological opinions: it attempted to model the impact of that portion of the expanded baseline, and then subtracted that from its estimate of impacts attributable to the action as a whole. It intended the result to be an estimate of the incremental impact to listed species of the proposed action standing alone.
Id. at *10. As the Court correctly concluded, courts have repeatedly ârejected NOAAâs
comparative approach in jeopardy analyses.â Id. at *10â11, 13 (citing and discussing cases that
have rejected comparative jeopardy analyses).
The differences in detail between the comparative jeopardy analysis the Court rejected in
the 2004 BiOp and the isolate-and-compare analysis in the 2020 BiOp do not alter the conclusion
that this comparative approach violates the ESA. The Courtâs rejection of a comparative
jeopardy analysis did not turn on the details of the comparison; instead, the Court held that
â[o]nly a comprehensive approach to jeopardy analysis will meet the [ESAâs] statutory
mandate.â Id. at *14. Moreover, the comparative analysis in the 2020 BiOp is even more
extreme than the 2004 BiOp because the 2020 BiOp compares the incremental effects of the
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 32 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 25 -
Proposed Action to all of the effects of prior unchanged and ongoing dam operations. See supra
at 7â10.
The Corps and NOAA cannot rationally or legally resurrect an isolate-and-compare
jeopardy analysis in the 2020 BiOp for the same reasons the Court rejected this analysis in the
2004 BiOp. As the Court concluded then, and as is still true today, comparing the effects of
proposed dam operations to the effects of previous dam operations âconflicts with the structure,
purpose, and policy behind the ESA.â NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL 1278878 at *9.13
2. The new regulatory definition of the âenvironmental baselineâ does not permit the Corps to avoid consultation on dam operations.
As explained above, the isolate-and-compare jeopardy analysis in the 2020 BiOp is
neither new nor legal. What is new are some of the regulations implementing the ESA, which
were revised in 2019 to include a new definition of âenvironmental baseline,â among other
changes. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02; 84 Fed. Reg. 44,976 (Aug. 27, 2019).14 The 2020 BiOp relies
in part on this new definition to support its isolate-and-compare jeopardy analysis. See 2020
BiOp at 125; id. at 46. The new definition cannot render the 2020 BiOpâs comparative analysis
legal for two reasons. First, nothing in this new regulation allows the Corps to avoid
consultation on its discretionary operation of the CRSâand if it does, it is illegal as applied here.
13 While this isolate-and-compare analysis is contrary to the Courtâs decisions and the ESA, it is strikingly similar to the Federal Defendantsâ failed defense of the 2004 BiOp. See, e.g., NWF v. NMFS, No. 01-640-SI, Federal Defendantsâ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 19 (Mar. 11, 2005) (ECF 616) (âNMFS makes its [jeopardy] determination by assessing the . . . the ânet,â effects of the proposed action. . . . If the results of this comparison were such that there would be no net reduction in the âreproduction, numbers, or distributionâ for a particular ESU, then NMFS would conclude the [proposed action] will not jeopardize that ESU . . . .â). 14 Multiple states and other entities have challenged these new regulations as arbitrary and inconsistent with the ESA. See NWFâs Amended Eighth Supplemental Complaint at ¶ 52 (ECF 2311). More recently, the government has announced that it expects to revoke or revise some of the regulations it relies on in the 2020 BiOp. See https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_esa/regulation-revisions.html (visited July 7, 2021).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 33 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 26 -
Second, the Corps may not rely on this new definition to insulate two decades of illegal actions
from its jeopardy analysis.
The new ESA regulations categorize the ânondiscretionaryâ portion of ongoing agency
activities as part of the âenvironmental baseline,â and so exclude the allegedly nondiscretionary
components of ongoing actions from âeffects of the actionâ in a jeopardy analysis. 50 C.F.R. §
402.02; 84 Fed. Reg. at 44,978, 45,016; see also 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4). Even though the new
definition of âenvironmental baselineâ encompasses nondiscretionary components of an ongoing
agency action, 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, as the Services explain in the rule preamble, any
discretionary elements of ongoing agency actions remain part of the effects of the action and so
are subject to the consultation requirement:
We distinguish here between activities and facilities where the Federal agency has no discretion to modify and those discretionary activities, operations, or facilities that are part of the proposed action but for which no change is proposed. For example, a Federal agency in their proposed action may modify some of their ongoing, discretionary operations of a water project and keep other ongoing, discretionary operations the same. The resulting consultation on future operations analyzes the effects of all of the discretionary operations of the water project on the species and designated critical habitat as part of the effects of the action, even those operations that the Federal agency proposes to keep the same.
84 Fed. Reg. at 44,978 (emphasis added).
The 2020 BiOp includes all ongoing and unchanged operations of the CRS and related
actions from the 2014 BiOpâs RPA in the environmental baseline, but the 2020 BiOp fails to
explain why it may treat any aspect of these prior operations as nondiscretionary. Indeed, it is
difficult to imagine what rational explanation might be offered for this position in light of the
Ninth Circuitâs explicit holding that the overall operation of the CRS is discretionary. NWF v.
NMFS, 524 F.3d at 928â29. Instead, the 2020 BiOp appears to do precisely what the new
regulation says it may not do: include in the environmental baseline the decision to continue
unchanged a wide array of discretionary actions. 84 Fed. Reg. at 44,978.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 34 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 27 -
To the extent the new definition of âenvironmental baselineâ permits this approach, it is
unlawful as applied here. As the Ninth Circuit has held, the ESA does not permit agencies to
âimmunize discretionary agency actions [from consultation] simply because they are taken in
pursuit of a non-discretionary goal.â NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 929. The Servicesâ attempt to
exclude by definition the harm caused by ongoing and past dam operationsâoperations the
Court has consistently rejected as illegal for the past twenty-plus yearsâdoes not reduce the
harmful effects of these operations on the listed species. As applied here, this new definition is
contrary to the fundamental purposes of the ESA: to prevent extinction and restore listed species
to a condition that no longer requires their protection by the Act. NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL
1278878 at *11 (holding that the 2004 BiOpâs effort to exclude ânondiscretionaryâ elements of
dam operations âconflicts with the structure, purpose, and policy behind the ESAâ); see also
Vierra v. Rubin, 915 F.2d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir. 1990) (âA court may invalidate an agency
regulation if it âis not reasonably related to the purposes of the statute it seeks to implementââ)
(internal citation omitted).
The 2020 BiOp also fails to offer any rational explanation for why it can include the
effects of ongoing CRS operations in the environmental baselineâand exclude them from the
effects of the Proposed Actionâwhen these operations have never been the subject of a valid
ESA consultation. The Court has consistently rejected every version of these prior operations as
illegal since the 2000 BiOp. See NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 880â84 (summarizing the
history of failure).15 Making this failure the baseline for the BiOpâs comparative analysis
irrationally and improperly builds the no-jeopardy finding in the 2020 BiOp on a foundation of
15 The 2019 BiOp was not challenged pursuant to the terms of a negotiated short-term spill agreement that did not include agreement by any party that this BiOp complied with the ESA. Supra at 5 & n.2.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 35 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 28 -
two decades of disregard for the ESA.
In sum, the Court has already rejected the comparative jeopardy approach that the 2020
BiOp employs. Nor can the new ESA regulations allow the 2020 BiOp to assign all of the harm
from the discretionary, illegal operation of the CRS to the environmental baseline in order to
insulate its harmful effects from the ESAâs jeopardy prohibition.
B. The 2020 BiOp Relies on an Illegal Not-Appreciably-Worse Jeopardy Standard.
The 2020 BiOpâs not-appreciably-worse jeopardy standard likewise resurrects an analysis
the Court has already explicitly rejected. NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 930. Under this illegal
standard, as long as the Proposed Action (as compared to prior operations) does not appreciably
reduce the speciesâ current reproduction, numbers, or distribution, it cannot cause jeopardy. See
supra at 10â13. This standard fails to legally or rationally address whether CRS operations over
the next 15 years will appreciably reduce the likelihood that the listed species will actually
survive and eventually recover, as the ESA and its implementing regulations require. 50 C.F.R.
§ 402.02; see also NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 891â93 (holding that analysis of likelihood
of survival and recovery must include some analysis of a recovery end point and whether the
proposed action appreciably reduces the likelihood of eventually reaching it).
The 2020 BiOpâs not-appreciably-worse jeopardy standard conflicts with the ESA
because it focuses only on whether the condition of the species will be appreciably worse
tomorrow than it is today. The Ninth Circuit flatly rejected this approach as contrary to the ESA
in affirming this Courtâs ruling on the 2004 BiOp:
NMFS argues that . . . it may satisfy the ESA by comparing the effects of proposed FCRPS operations on listed species to the risk posed by baseline conditions. Only if those effects are âappreciablyâ worse than baseline conditions must a full jeopardy analysis be made. Under this approach, a listed species could be gradually destroyed, so long as each step on the path to destruction is sufficiently modest. This type of slow slide into oblivion is one of the very ills the ESA seeks to prevent.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 36 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 29 -
NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 930. Nor was that the first time courts had rejected this approach.
Courts first rejected a ânot-appreciably-worseâ jeopardy standard in 1999, holding that âthe
regulatory definition of jeopardy . . . does not mean that an action agency can âstay the courseâ
just because doing so has been shown slightly less harmful to the listed species than previous
operations.â ALCOA v. BPA, 175 F.3d 1156, 1162 n.6 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoted in NWF v. NMFS,
184 F. Supp. 3d at 891â92). The courts have ruled for decades that this not-appreciably-worse
jeopardy standard is illegal and it has not become any more legal with the passage of time.
The 2020 BiOpâs ânot-appreciably-worseâ standard also is contrary to the Courtâs
consistent holdings that even de minimus improvements in survival are not per se adequate to
avoid jeopardy:
[I]f 100 listed species are expected to survive downstream juvenile migration in 1993, and 99 survived in 1990, [this result] would mandate a no-jeopardy findingâeven though a 100 survival level may still be considered so low as to constitute a continued threat to the speciesâ existence.
IDFG v. NMFS, 850 F. Supp. 886, 899 (D. Or. 1994) (quoted in NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d
at 892). As the Court has noted, a jeopardy standard that focuses only on a de minimus
improvement in abundance is inconsistent with NMFSâs Consultation Handbook and its own
longstanding assessment of what is necessary to avoid jeopardy to a speciesâ survival and
eventual recovery. NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 891 (quoting ESA Consultation Handbook
and 1999 Memorandum on Habitat Approach).
Relying on this ânot-appreciably-worseâ standard, the 2020 BiOp completely fails to
rationally analyze the effects of the PA on the listed speciesâ likelihood of eventual recovery. As
this Court has already held, in order to understand whether a proposed action is likely to
appreciably reduce a speciesâ likelihood of recovery and so jeopardize the speciesâ continued
existence, a BiOp must articulate some description of the conditions that would constitute
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 37 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 30 -
eventual recovery. See NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 891â93. Remarkably, the 2020 BiOp
announces that such analysis is unnecessary, stating that âneither the ESA nor our implementing
regulations require that a proposed action or RPA result in populations or species being on a
trend toward recovery, or otherwise result in improvements that would ensure survival of a
species or improve the potential for recovery.â 2019 BiOp at 26â27 (cited in 2020 BiOp at 45).16
This position is directly at odds with the Courtâs prior holdings without a rational explanation.
NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 895 (âWithout identifying âroughâ recovery abundance levels
and time frames, NOAA Fisheries cannot logically conclude that the RPA actions will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood that recovery will be attained.â) (citation omitted). See also
NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL 1278878 at *13 (rejecting failure of 2004 BiOp to address impacts to
eventual recovery); NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 931â34 (same). The agenciesâ misguided focus
on whether the PA will reduce the speciesâ current reproduction, numbers, or distribution cannot
excuse their failure to address the forward-looking survival and recovery inquiry that is required
in a legally adequate jeopardy analysis.
16 The limited explanation for disregarding risk to eventual recovery in the 2020 BiOp is actually the same as the defense offered for the 2004 BiOp and rejected by the Court. Compare 2019 BiOp at 27 (â[a] standard requiring an improvement to species status, growth rates, or other metrics would be contrary to the plain language of section 7(a)(2)â) (cited in 2020 BiOp at 45) with NWF v. NMFS, No. 01-640-SI, Federal Defendantsâ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 23â25 (Mar. 11, 2005) (ECF 616) (âSection 7(a)(2) . . . does not command that an action must improve a speciesâ chances of survival or recoveryâ (emphasis in original)). Compare also 2020 BiOp at 44â45 (â[r]ather than continue on the path of developing CRS-specific standards, in the 2019 [BiOp] we returned to our usual practice applied in most (if not all) ESA consultations.â) with NWF v. NMFS, No. 01-640-SI, Federal Defendantsâ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 8 (Mar. 11, 2005) (ECF 616) (in contrast to the âapproach [in the 2000 BiOp], which was essentially unique to the hydrosystem context [and] was a product of the consultation history and the regional interest in analysis that focused on the speciesâ entire life-cycle, [the 2004 BiOpâs] analytical approach [is] more faithful to the language and intent of § 7(a)(2) and the implementing regulations, and more in line with the standard approach taken in other contextsâ).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 38 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 31 -
As the Court has noted, the requirement that a BiOp articulate a rough recovery endpoint
is necessary to evaluate whether an agency action creates a âânew risk of harmââ by appreciably
delaying recovery. NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 892. This is not the same as requiring
agency actions to improve the condition of the species, and cases holding that such improvement
is unnecessary are âinapposite.â Id. Nor does rejecting a ânot-appreciably-worseâ jeopardy
standard confound the requirement to avoid jeopardy with the recovery planning provisions of
ESA section 4. See id. at 895 (acknowledging that âNOAA Fisheries need not identify a full
recovery plan in making its jeopardy determinationâ but that it must identify a rough recovery
endpoint to analyze recovery).
The recent amendments to the regulations implementing the ESA do not allow the 2020
BiOp to use a not-appreciably-worse jeopardy standard. The amendments did not alter the
definition of âto jeopardize the continued existence of.â 50 C.F.R. § 402.02; see also 84 Fed.
Reg. at 45,016. And while the rule preamble cites and disagrees with the Ninth Circuitâs
decision rejecting the 2004 BiOp, the preamble does not (and could not) alter the requirement
that a jeopardy analysis include an assessment of the speciesâ likelihood of survival and
recovery. See 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178, 35,182 (July 25, 2018) (arguing that the court âmistakenly
asserted that a species may already be in a status of being âin jeopardy,â âin peril,â or
âjeopardizedâ by baseline conditionsâ); id. at 35,183 (arguing that the Services need not âidentify
a âtipping pointâ as a necessary prerequisite for making section 7(a)(2) determinationsâ).
Nothing in the revised regulations supports reliance on a not-appreciably-worse jeopardy
standard that the Court has already rejected.
As the Ninth Circuit has noted, a not-appreciably-worse jeopardy standard conflicts with
the core purpose of the ESA itselfâreturning listed species to a condition that no longer requires
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 39 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 32 -
the protection of the Act. NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 930 (âThis type of slow slide into oblivion
is one of the very ills the ESA seeks to prevent.â); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b); id. § 1532(3).
This standard also conflicts with the longstanding requirement that a jeopardy analysis examine
risks to a speciesâ survival and ultimate recovery. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The 2020 BiOpâs attempt
to resurrect an illegal not-appreciably-worse jeopardy standard must fail.
C. The 2020 BiOp Does Not Actually Account for the Effects of Climate Change.
The 2020 BiOp acknowledges that many populations of listed salmon are headed for
likely extinction when the effects of the Proposed Action are evaluated in a warming world, see
supra at 13â15, but the BiOp fails to address these dire predictions lawfully or rationally for at
least two reasons. First, the BiOp fails to determine whether the PA will jeopardize listed
species in the real worldâa warming one. Neither the BiOpâs efforts to disclaim responsibility
for the effects of the Proposed Action with climate change, nor the revised ESA regulations,
allow the BiOp to dodge the crucial question of whether the Proposed Action with climate
change will jeopardize listed species. Second, the BiOpâs arbitrary conclusion that the Proposed
Action will âmitigateâ for the effects of climate change cannot substitute for the required
jeopardy finding.
1. The 2020 BiOp fails to rationally or legally determine whether the effects of the Proposed Action with climate change will cause jeopardy.
The 2020 BiOp predicts that the Proposed Action in combination with climate change
will have a devastating effect on Snake and Columbia River salmon. For Snake River
spring/summer Chinook, for example, the 2020 BiOp candidly acknowledges that many smaller
populations will almost certainly be extirpated and larger ones, which are the remaining species
strongholds, will face substantially reduced abundance and productivity and sharply increased
risks to their persistence. 2020 BiOp at 275â76. As the BiOp concludes, â[b]ased on the
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 40 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 33 -
modeling, we expect abundances over the next 24 years to decrease and extinction risk to
increase, even when taking into account the benefits of the proposed non-operational
conservation measures and the most optimistic hypotheses.â Id. at 289. If these forecasts do not
amount to an appreciable reduction in the likelihood that the listed species will survive and
recoverâin other words, jeopardyâit is not clear what would.
The BiOp avoids determining whether the Proposed Action will cause jeopardy in a
warming world, however, by asserting that these consequences are a result of climate change
alone, and so are not an effect of the Proposed Action. See 2020 BiOp at 289 (âThese climate
change consequences are not caused by the proposed action.â); id. at 279 (âThese conditions are
not caused by, nor will they be exacerbated by, the continued operation and maintenance of the
CRS as proposed in the biological assessment.â). Yet the analysis predicting these consequences
actually includes the effects of the Proposed Action as well as the effects of climate change, not
just the effects of climate change. Compare 2020 BiOp at 242 (modeling incorporates Proposed
Action and climate warming) with id. at 289, 291, 279 (asserting that modeling results show
climate change consequences not caused by the Proposed Action). In short, the 2020 BiOp
shows exactly what it includes in its analysis: the devastating effects of the Proposed Action in a
warming world, id. at 242, not the separate and isolated effects of climate change alone. The
BiOpâs efforts to disclaim responsibility for the effects of the Proposed Action in the real
(warming) world are contrary to the BiOpâs own analysis. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assân of
U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 56 (1983) (rejecting agency rationale
when âevery indication in the record points the other wayâ) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015, 1029â30 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting
agency conclusion that did not follow from the facts found).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 41 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 34 -
To the extent the 2020 BiOp relies on the new ESA regulations to avoid determining
whether the Proposed Action with climate change will avoid jeopardy, the 2020 BiOp has failed
to explain rationally how the new regulations permit this approach. See 2020 BiOp at 291
(concluding that the proposed action will not cause jeopardy and tracking the language of revised
50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4)). The new regulations still require agencies to make a jeopardy
determination after adding the effects of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental
baseline, and in light of the status of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4). Indeed, the preamble
to the new regulations acknowledges that âsome listed species are more imperiled than others,
and that for some very rare or very imperiled species, the amount of adverse effects to critical
habitat or to the species itself that can occur without triggering a âjeopardizeâ or âdestruction or
adverse modificationâ determination may be small.â 84 Fed. Reg. at 44,987. In other words, the
new regulations still require the 2020 BiOp to make a jeopardy determination in a real-world
context by actually aggregating the effects of the action with the baseline and cumulative effects.
The 2020 BiOp fails to do just that. Alternatively, to the extent the new regulations permit the
2020 BiOp to exclude the effects of climate change from its jeopardy analysis, they conflict with
the ESA and are unlawful as applied here. See NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 930 (affirming that a
biological opinion must âconsider the effects of [federal] action[] âwithin the context of other
existing human activities that impact the listed species.ââ) (quoting ALCOA, 175 F.3d at 1162 n.6
and Pac. Coast Fedân of Fishermenâs Assoc. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082,
1093 (9th Cir. 2005)).
In short, nothing in the ESA or the new regulations permit the 2020 BiOp to conclude
that the Proposed Action will not jeopardize listed species despite its own prediction that
continued operation of the CRS together with climate change will dramatically decrease the
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 42 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 35 -
abundance of listed species and increase their extinction risk.
2. The 2020 BiOpâs conclusion that the proposed action will mitigate for climate change cannot substitute for a jeopardy determination.
In a further effort to avoid recognizing the harmful effects of the Proposed Action in a
warming world, the 2020 BiOp improperly substitutes for a real-world jeopardy determination
the alternative, arbitrary, and illegal conclusion that the Proposed Action will âmitigateâ the
effects of climate change to some unstated extent. E.g., BiOp at 291 (âClimate change is a
substantial threat to SR spring/summer Chinook salmon . . . . The proposed action is expected to
reduce both the scope and severity of those impacts and not exacerbate them.â). The ESA,
however, requires federal actions to avoid jeopardy in the real-world context in which they will
occur. See NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 930. By substituting a âmitigate-to-some-extentâ finding
for a jeopardy determination, the 2020 BiOp illegally seeks to duck the core issue of whether
additional actions and changes to dam operations are necessary to avoid jeopardy in a warming
world.
The 2020 BiOpâs conclusion that the PA will mitigate for the effects of climate change is
arbitrary for at least three additional reasons. First, the conclusion that the PA will âmitigateâ for
climate harms is based on the BiOpâs illegal isolate-and-compare jeopardy analysis and its
flawed treatment of the environmental baseline. Under this illegal comparative framework, the
2020 BiOpâs jeopardy analysis addresses only the minor changes between the PA and prior
operations without accounting for the full effects of proposed dam operations in the context in
which they will actually occur. See supra at 7â10, 23â28. As the BiOp acknowledges, the
ongoing operation of the CRS exacerbates and compounds the effects of climate change by
contributing to the same changes in river conditions that harm salmon, such as seasonally
increased water temperatures and changed river flows. Compare 2020 BiOp at 126â33 (effects
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 43 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 36 -
of CRS operations on water temperature and flow) with id. at 242 (effects of climate on water
temperature and flow). The BiOp, however, illegally assigns all of the harm from ongoing CRS
operations to the environmental baseline instead of the Proposed Action.
Second, the 2020 BiOp suggests that the sharp population declines it predicts for the
Proposed Action with climate change are attributable almost entirely to worsening ocean
conditions as opposed to freshwater conditions. 2020 BiOp at 275â76 (âThe decline in the
number of spawners is much greater during the marine phase of the life cycle than other life
stages.â); id. at 291. Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. The Corps must ensure that its
operation of the CRS does not appreciably reduce the likelihood that ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead will be able to survive and eventually recover despite the real-world threats they faceâ
such as worsening ocean conditions. NWF v. NMFS, 524 F.3d at 930 (NOAA must evaluate
ââwhat jeopardy might result from the agencyâs proposed actions in the present and future
human and natural contexts.ââ (emphasis in original)) (quoting Pac. Coast Fedân, 426 F.3d at
1093)). This means that the Corps must adjust its operation of the CRS so that listed species can
survive and eventually recover despite worsening ocean conditions caused by climate change.17
Finally, the 2020 BiOp acknowledges that the only species for which it includes a
quantitative analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action with climate impactsâSnake River
spring/summer Chinookâis a species that is more insulated from freshwater climate impacts
than other Snake and Columbia River species. 2020 BiOp at 276â77 (âThe high-elevation,
mostly-wilderness habitat of SR Chinook ESU partially explains the relatively small effects of
17 The 2020 BiOp concludes that worsening ocean conditions are almost entirely responsible for the population declines it predicts, but the BiOp does not explain how that conclusion is consistent with its acknowledgement that freshwater conditions, including slowed travel times and high water temperatures, also lower marine survival. 2020 BiOp at 278; see also Declaration of Howard A Schaller, Ph.D. at ¶¶ 27, 37â39, 57, 59â60 (filed concurrently).
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 44 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 37 -
climate change on their freshwater life stages.â). The 2020 BiOp does not, however, explain
how it accounts for the increased risks to other species that are more vulnerable to climate
impacts in their freshwater life stage. See, e.g., id. at 533â34 (Snake River sockeye). This
failure improperly places the burden of risk from the Proposed Action on these other species that
are more sensitive to climate impacts. See NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 906 (holding that
the 2008/2014 BiOp âplaces all of the risk of that uncertainty on the species. This is precisely
what the ESA does not permit.â) (internal citations omitted).
D. The 2020 BiOp Arbitrarily Fails to Give the Listed Species the Benefit of the Doubt.
The 2020 BiOp arbitrarily fails to give listed species the benefit of the doubt in multiple
ways. Like so many of the errors in the 2020 BiOp, this failure is not new: the Court has
previously ruled that prior BiOps also failed, in part, because they did not give the ââbenefit of
the doubtââ to the listed species. NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 873 (quoting Sierra Club v.
Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1987), and referencing the precautionary principle); see also id.
at 887â896 (describing failure to adequately evaluate risks to species recovery which also failed
to give the âbenefit of the doubtâ to the species); id. at 901 (describing reliance on broad
confidence intervals and noting that the analysis in the 2008/2014 BiOp failed to give the
âbenefit of the doubtâ to the species). As the Court has held, the risk that a proposed action will
cause jeopardy âmust be borne by the project, not by the endangered species.â Id. at 904 (citing
Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d at 1386).
The 2020 BiOp disregards this precautionary principle yet again. To provide just one
familiar example, as with the 2008/2014 BiOp, the 2020 BiOp relies on survival improvements
from habitat actions that are not specified even for the next five years, let alone thereafter, as a
factor in concluding that the Proposed Action will not jeopardize listed species. See supra at 15â
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 45 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 38 -
16 (explaining that the 2020 BiOp discusses tributary habitat mitigation actions in only the
broadest terms). The BiOp also incorporates 15 yearsâ worth of âbenefitsâ from these
unspecified and uncertain habitat actions into its quantitative modeling, 2020 BiOp at 226, 286,
despite the fact that the action agencies have not identified any specific habitat actions beyond
2026, see BA at App. D. The BiOp does not even attempt to analyze or acknowledge a range of
potential outcomes for these unspecified actions or evaluate whether outcomes at the low end of
this range would be adequate to avoid jeopardy. As the Court has already held, such an approach
unlawfully places the burden of uncertainty on the listed species, rather than the proposed action.
NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 904â06.18
The 2020 BiOp compounds this failure with yet another familiar error: it double-counts
the same unspecified habitat, spill and other actions by relying on these measures to avoid
jeopardy from dam operations and to mitigate for the effects of climate change. See 2020 BiOp
at 289 (â[E]lements of the proposed action (flexible spring spill operations, tributary and estuary
habitat restoration and research, monitoring, and evaluation programs) should help to improve
the resiliency of SR spring/summer Chinook salmon populations to expected climate change
effects.â); id. at 279. At the same time, the BiOp fails to explain or rationally consider the ways
in which climate change will reduce the effectiveness of the measures in the PA that will
supposedly mitigate for the effects of climate change, such as habitat restoration. See id. at 217â
18;ee also id., App. A at 16â20 (concluding that habitat actions will mitigate for climate change
but not evaluating whether climate change will reduce effectiveness of habitat actions). As this
18 In the same way, the 2020 ROD and BiOp place the burden of risk on the species because they make clear that even the modest benefits of âflexible spillâ are only a required part of the Proposed Action in 2021 and may be changed thereafter, 2020 BiOp at 54â57 (referring to a process for adaptively managing spring spill), yet the analysis assumes benefits from this spill operation for the entire 15-year term of the BiOp.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 46 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 39 -
Court has already held, the 2020 BiOp cannot rationally assume that the same limited actions
will mitigate for the harmful effects of both CRS operations and climate change. NWF v. NMFS,
184 F. Supp. 3d at 923 (NOAA failed to properly evaluate âwhether the benefits expected from
the RPA actions are sufficient in light of that expected added harm and decrease in effectiveness
of RPA actionsâ due to climate change).
To the extent the 2020 BiOp relies on the new ESA regulations to justify placing the risk
on the listed species that survival improvements from habitat mitigation will not materialize, the
new regulations are illegal as applied in this case. These new regulations purport to allow the
2020 BiOp to rely on an agencyâs future mitigation promises âas proposedâ without requiring
âspecific binding plans or a clear, definite commitment of resources.â 84 Fed. Reg. at 44,979â
80, 45,017; see also 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(8). This new language flatly conflicts with the
fundamental purposes of the ESA to protect listed species regardless of the cost, Tenn. Valley
Auth., 437 U.S. at 184, and to err on the side of caution when evaluating the effects of a proposed
action on a species. NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 904 (âthe risk that [a proposed action will
cause jeopardy] âmust be borne by the project, not by the endangered speciesââ) (quoting Sierra
Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d at 1386);see also Vierra, 915 F.2d at 1376 (courts may invalidate
regulations that are inconsistent with the purpose of the statute they implement).
In short, the 2020 BiOp arbitrarily fails to give listed species the benefit of the doubt by
placing the risk that survival improvements from unspecified habitat actions will not materialize
on the species, instead of the project. The BiOp compounds this error by assuming the same
unspecified actions will mitigate for both CRS operations and climate change.
E. The 2020 BiOp Fails to Use the Best Available Science and Fails to Provide a Rational Connection Between Its Analysis and Its No-Jeopardy Conclusion.
Finally, the 2020 BiOp fails to articulate a rational connection between the limited effects
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 47 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 40 -
it ascribes to the Proposed Action and its ultimate no-jeopardy conclusion. First, the BiOp fails
to rely on the best available science or rationally explain how its quantitative analyses support its
no-jeopardy conclusion. Second, the reasoning behind the BiOpâs ultimate no-jeopardy
conclusion is impossible to trace.
1. The 2020 BiOp fails to use the best available science or rationally explain its quantitative analyses.
The 2020 BiOp fails to rationally explain its quantitative analyses and fails to use the best
available scientific information for several reasons.
First, the 2020 BiOp fails to include any rational explanation for how its limited
quantitative analyses relate to its no-jeopardy conclusions. While the BiOp includes page after
page of charts displaying QET risk and median abundance over 24 years, e.g. 2020 BiOp at 227â
39 (stable climate), id. at 245â75 (warming climate), nowhere does the BiOp explain how it
actually uses these quantitative analyses in assessing risk to speciesâ survival and eventual
recovery. For example, population biologists often use a greater than 5% risk of exceeding a
QET threshold over 100 years to define an unacceptable risk to species survival. See Declaration
of Howard A Schaller at ¶¶ 59â60 (filed concurrently) (âSchaller Dec.â). Even assuming a
stable climate, the BiOp predicts that many populations will exceed this 5% risk over 24 years (a
far shorter timeframe). See, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 232â33 (finding 4% to 88% risk of populations in
the Middle Fork Salmon River MPG exceeding the QET 50 within 24 years, assuming a stable
climate). The BiOp never explains what level of risk of exceeding its QET threshold over 24
years would constitute jeopardy. Similarly, the BiOp simply reports predicted average
abundances for various populations, without explaining what levels of predicted abundance
would appreciably reduce a speciesâ likelihood of survival and recovery. See, e.g., id. at 240.
The reported QET risk and average abundances have no apparent, let alone rational, connection
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 48 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 41 -
to the 2020 BiOpâs no-jeopardy conclusion. The agenciesâ failure to explain how they use these
metrics is arbitrary. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; Natâl Assân of Clean Water Agencies v.
EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that EPA must âspecify in greater detail
why the equation it is using can accomplish the purpose for which EPA is using the equationâ
(emphasis in original)).19
Second, the 2020 BiOp simply fails to use available and credible scientific information
that would support a rational assessment of the risk the Proposed Action poses to the survival
and recovery of the listed species. This information includes a number of population
productivity metrics, as well as the viability analyses and minimum population abundance
thresholds developed by NMFSâs Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (âICTRTâ). See
NWF v. NMFS, 184 F. Supp. 3d at 894â895 (noting failure to use this available scientific
information). There can be no doubt that these scientific tools are available and credibleâfor
example, the 2014 BiOp used several key population productivity metrics to evaluate the effects
of the RPA it considered (albeit in connection with a trending towards recovery standard that
failed to comply with the ESA). See id. at 887 (noting NOAAâs statement in the 2014 BiOp that
recruits per spawner or R/S is the most useful performance metric). The 2020 BiOp, however,
contains no analysis of predicted recruits per spawner (R/S) or any similar population
productivity metric.
Similarly, the 2020 BiOp could have used ICTRT viability analyses and threshold
abundance goals to explain the significance of geometric mean abundance numbers for listed
19 The 2020 BiOp also fails to include a rational explanation for its âalternativeâ set of COMPASS model results that incorporate a 35% productivity increase attributed to the CSS âhypothesis.â The COMPASS and CSS models are inherently different, and mixing and matching portions of each is not a rational or scientifically valid approach. See Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 45â64.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 49 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 42 -
species. See id at 888â89. The 2020 BiOp mentions the ICTRT analyses and displays some
information from them, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 107â109, but does not explain whether or how it is
addressed in the jeopardy analysis. See id. at 891 (âNOAA Fisheries does not offer a reasonable
explanation for why it did not use the best available science of existing and minimum viable
abundance levels [from the ICTRT] of the listed fish in considering impacts to the likelihood of
achieving recoveryâ).
It is not the case that these metrics have somehow lost their scientific credibility. Instead,
because the 2020 BiOp takes the position that the Proposed Action does not need to improve the
current condition of the species, see supra at 10â13, 28â32, it arbitrarily and illegally treats these
metrics as irrelevant. This illegal analytical framework cannot excuse the BiOpâs failure to rely
on the best available scientific information regarding risks to a speciesâ survival and recovery.
16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (requiring agencies to use the best available scientific information in
consultations).
2. The 2020 BiOp fails to rationally explain its no-jeopardy conclusion.
The 2020 BiOp fails to rationally explain its ultimate conclusion that CRS operations will
not jeopardize any listed species of salmon or steelhead. As a threshold matter, the BiOpâs no-
jeopardy conclusion is only possible because of the many flaws described above, including: (1)
the comparison of the effects of the PA to the effects of prior operations and the inclusion of
ongoing operations in the environmental baseline; (2) the view that the PA cannot cause jeopardy
as long as it does not appreciably worsen the speciesâ current condition; (3) a determination that
the effects of the PA in a warming climate do not affect its no-jeopardy finding; (4) the failure to
give listed species the benefit of the doubt; and (5) the failure to use the best available science.
Each of these errors renders the ultimate no-jeopardy conclusion arbitrary and provides an
independent basis to hold the 2020 BiOp and 2020 ROD unlawful.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 50 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 43 -
In addition, the no-jeopardy conclusions for each species in the 2020 BiOp are also
arbitrary and unexplained because the reasoning leading to these conclusions is impossible to
trace. For example, for Snake River spring/summer Chinook, the 2020 BiOp presents the results
of its quantitative modeling, which show that the PA will reduce smolt-to-adult returns from 0.88
percent to 0.81 percent unless uncertain hypothesized productivity increases in fact materialize.
2020 BiOp at 241 (acknowledging that increases in productivity may not materialize but offering
no explanation for whether or how this would affect the no-jeopardy finding).20 The BiOp does
not explain how this finding that the PA may result in generational declines of listed species is
consistent with its no-jeopardy conclusion, or with the precautionary principle requiring that the
burden of any uncertainty be borne by the project and not the listed species, see Sierra Club v.
Marsh, 816 F.2d at 1386.
Similarly, the BiOp does not include any explanation for how it weighted or combined
various other qualitative and quantitative factors to reach a no-jeopardy conclusion. For
example, the BiOp acknowledges that aspects of the PA will harm Snake River spring/summer
Chinook, such as increased reservoir elevations at a number of dams during juvenile migration
seasons and allowing dam turbines to operate above the 1% peak efficiency range. 2020 BiOp at
290. The BiOp also states that the PA is âlikely to improveâ factors such as dam passage
survival and degraded tributary and estuary habitat, relative to prior dam operations and
associated actions. Id. The 2020 BiOp then notes that âthe proposed action includes some
elements that will harm salmonids and some that will benefit salmonids.â Id. It recognizes that
20 The 2020 BiOp does not discuss what level of, or change in, smolt-to-adult returns would equate to jeopardy. Nor does it address the fact that the best available science shows that SARs below 1% indicate that a population is declining toward extinction and that the PA will leave many listed species with a high probability of continuing SARs below 1%. See Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 21, 46.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 51 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 44 -
the Proposed Action combined with current and future climate change poses a profound threat to
the speciesâ likelihood of survival and recovery. Id. at 291. The BiOp then summarily
concludes that the Proposed Action will not jeopardize Snake River spring/summer Chinook. Id.
at 290â91. This opaque conclusion that some unspecified amount of harm and some unspecified
amount of benefit somehow add up to no jeopardy for Snake River spring/summer Chinook fails
to satisfy the obligation to articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the
ultimate no-jeopardy conclusion. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; see also NCAP v. EPA, 544 F.3d
1043, 1052 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting vague and untraceable agency rationale). The no-
jeopardy conclusions for other species are similarly opaque and arbitrary. E.g. 2020 BiOp at
528â34 (Snake River sockeye); id. at 748â55 (Upper Columbia River spring Chinook).
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, NWF is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that the
Corps violated the ESA in the 2020 ROD by relying on the 2020 BiOp.
II. THE PRELIMINARY RELIEF NWF SEEKS WILL REDUCE IRREPARABLE HARM TO ESA-LISTED SALMON AND STEELHEAD AND IS NARROWLY TAILORED
NWF seeks a preliminary injunction against the Corps for violations of the ESA, starting
with the spring spill season in 2022 and extending until further order of the Court, to: (1)
increase voluntary spring spill to the maximum level currently allowed under state water quality
standards (with specific exceptions); (2) extend voluntary summer spill at the levels requested in
Oregonâs injunction motion through the end of the summer spill season (August 31st); and (3)
require limited voluntary spill from the end of the summer spill season until the beginning of the
following spring spill season as specified in Oregonâs motion.
NWF also seeks an injunction to: (1) restore reservoir levels in the lower Snake River to
their Minimum Operating Pool (âMOPâ) elevation with a one-foot operating range from March 1
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 52 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 45 -
until August 31 beginning in March 2022 and until further order of the Court; and (2) require the
Corps to submit a plan to the Court by September 1, 2022 to operate the reservoirs above
McNary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville dams at their MOP elevations with a one-foot
operating range from March 1 until June 15 each year beginning in 2023.
Additional details regarding specific aspects of this relief are set forth in Oregonâs motion
for a preliminary injunction. NWF supports and joins in that motion.
The spill relief described above is an incremental increase in spill relative to the spill
injunction the Court granted in 2017. Like that injunction, NWFâs requested relief will help
reduce mortality of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. See NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at
*5â6. The reservoir elevations and operating ranges NWF seeks will also help reduce mortality
of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead for the reasons described below and in the accompanying
Declaration of Dr. Howard A Schaller.
A. The Proposed Action Addressed in the 2020 BiOp Will Continue to Cause Irreparable Harm to ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead.
There can be no doubt that continued operation of the CRS dams and reservoirs pursuant
to the Corpsâ 2020 ROD and the 2020 BiOp will cause irreparable harm to salmon and steelhead.
These operations are largely a continuation of the RPA from the illegal 2014 BiOp that the Court
has already concluded would cause irreparable harm to these species. NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL
1829588 at *5â6; see also supra at 6â13 (describing dam and reservoir operations under the
2020 BiOp and ROD). To the extent the Corpsâ Proposed Action is a change from that illegal
RPA, it includes many measures that actually will be worse for salmon and steelhead than the
2014 RPA. These harmful changes include, but are not limited to, increased operating ranges for
reservoirs above some dams on the lower Snake River and increased reservoir elevations above
John Day Dam for part of the spring migration season, see 2020 BiOp at 58â59 & Table 1.3-3
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 53 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 46 -
(describing lower Snake and John Day reservoir spring operations), turbine operations outside
the 1% efficiency range, id. at 61â63, and the early reduction or elimination of summer spill, id.
at 57â58. Climate change will exacerbate the harm caused by the CRS and reduce the
effectiveness of habitat actions and other mitigation. See Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 39â44.
The modest and uncertain increase in spring spill under the flexible spill operation as now
included in the Proposed Action does not in any way eliminate this irreparable harm. First, the
Corpsâ ROD and the 2020 BiOp make clear that this flexible spill is only part of the Proposed
Action in 2021 and may be changed thereafter. 2020 BiOp at 54â57 (referring to a process for
adaptively managing spring spill). Second, the interim Flexible Spill Agreement itself
acknowledges the parties did not agree that the spill levels it would allow are adequate to comply
with the law or avoid harm to listed species. See ECF 2298, 2298-1 at 1, 9 (filed Dec. 12, 2018).
Third, other analyses confirm that the spill levels under the Proposed Action will lead to
continued generational declines for Snake River salmon (indicating continued generational
declines) far more often, and within the 2% to 6% (average of 4%) SAR range far less often, than
spill at higher levels. See CSS 2019 Annual Report at 38â45 (Dec. 2019) (âCSS 2019 Annual
Reportâ), available at https://www.fpc.org/documents/CSS/2019CSSAnnualReport.pdf. Indeed,
one of the primary constraints on voluntary spring spill under the interim Flexible Spill
Agreement was the objectiveâsolely for the purpose of that Agreementâthat any increase in
spill levels under it not increase costs to the Bonneville Power Administration beyond the levels
it had incurred under the Courtâs 2017 spill injunction. See ECF 2298-1 at 1â2. This financial
consideration is not a requirement of any applicable law, and is not relevant to whether the spill
relief NWF seeks is necessary to reduce harm to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. See NWF v.
NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *3, 6.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 54 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 47 -
In short, as the Court has observed of operations under a prior biological opinion:
I find that the DAMS strongly contribute to the endangerment of the listed species and irreparable injury will result if changes are not made. . . . Ample evidence in the record . . . . indicates that operation of the DAMS causes a substantial level of mortality to migrating juvenile salmon and steelhead. Indeed, in the 2004 BiOp itself, NOAA noted that while âa non-trivial level of mortality would likely occur even under free-flowing river conditions . . ., the existence and operations of the dams and reservoirs . . . account[s] for most of the mortality of juvenile migration through the FCRPS . . . .â 2004BiOp at 5-29 . . . . . I find that irreparable harm results to listed species as a result of the action agenciesâ implementation of the updated proposed action.
NWF v. NMFS, No. CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 1398223 at *4â5 (D. Or. June 10, 2005), affâd in
part, remanded in part, 422 F.3d 782, 795 (9th Cir. 2005) (âwe cannot say that the district
courtâs factual finding concerning irreparable harm was clearly erroneousâ); see also NWF v.
NMFS, 422 F.3d 782, 795 & n.9 (9th Cir. 2005) (âFCRPS operations account for most of the
mortalityâ to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead).
The Court reached the same conclusion in the 2017 injunction order for dam and
reservoir operations under the 2014 BiOpâs RPA. NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *5â6
(âcontinuation of the status quo is likely to result in irreparable harm to the listed speciesâ).
There is no reason to reach a different conclusion for the dam and reservoir operations under the
Corpsâ Proposed Action.
B. Increased Voluntary Spill Will Reduce Irreparable Harm to Salmon and Steelhead.
For juvenile salmon and steelhead migrating in the Snake and Columbia Rivers, âspillâ
has long been recognized as providing the safest passage over the CRS dams with the highest
survival rates. See, e.g., NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *7â9 (discussing effects of
voluntary spill); Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 64â73 (summarizing history of and benefits to juvenile
salmon and steelhead survival from voluntary spill); see also 2000 BiOp at 6â17 (âIn general,
relative to other passage routes currently available, direct juvenile survival is highest through
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 55 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 48 -
spillbaysâ); id. at 6 ¶ 15 (explaining that salmon suffer the âlowest direct mortality through
spillwaysâ). Releasing water over the spillways at the four lower Snake River and four lower
Columbia River dams allows more salmon and steelhead to avoid traveling through the power
turbines and fish bypass facilities (collectively âpowerhouse passageâ), passage routes that
increase mortality by subjecting these fish to life-threatening impacts. See, e.g., Schaller Dec. at
¶¶ 64â73; see also 2019 CSS Annual Report at 23 ¶ 59 (describing factors affecting juvenile
survival and analyzing effects of spill operations on juvenile survival and adult return rates,
including the preferred alternative in the CRSO DEIS).
Based on the strength of the evidence that increased spring spill increases life-cycle
survival and reduces mortality, the Court granted an injunction in 2017 requiring voluntary
spring spill up to the maximum levels allowed at that time by state water quality standards for
total dissolved gas (âTDGâ) and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. See NWF v. NMFS,
2017 WL 1829588 at *5â11, affâd in part, 866 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018). Since 2017, both
Washington and Oregon have modified their water quality standards to allow additional
voluntary spill in the spring up to 125% TDG levels and, in fact, the Corps has been providing
spill to this level on a limited basis under the interim Flexible Spill Agreement. ECF 2298-1 at
3â6 (filed Dec. 12, 2018) (summarizing these then-anticipated changes and spill operations under
the anticipated standards).
NWF now asks the Court to require voluntary spring spill to the 125% maximum level,
consistent with state water quality standards, at all eight lower Snake and lower Columbia River
dams (with exceptions noted in Oregonâs motion) on a 24-hour basis throughout the spring
salmon migration season beginning in April 2022 and until further order of the Court. This
increase in voluntary spring spill will improve juvenile survival, reduce mortality, and likely lead
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 56 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 49 -
to increased adult returns. See Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 74â82; see also CSS 2019 Annual Report at
38â45. This increased spill will benefit not only ESA-listed Snake River species but also those
that originate above the confluence of the Snake and Columbia because these fish must pass the
four lower Columbia River dams where the additional spill will benefit them. Because the Corps
has already been providing spill to the 125% TDG gas caps on a more limited basis under the
interim Flexible Spill Agreement, implementing spill to this level on a 24-hour basis beginning
in 2022 should be straightforward.
NWF also asks the Court to require the Corps to provide summer spill at the levels
provided in the 2020 BiOp and prior BiOps through the entire summer salmon migration season,
i.e., through August 31st, rather than reducing or terminating summer spill early as the 2020
BiOp allows, see 2020 BiOp at 57â58. The Court has previously enjoined the Corps from this
early termination of summer spill and the Ninth Circuit has affirmed that injunction. See NWF v.
NMFS, 422 F.3d at 795â98 (affirming grant of injunction to require summer spill through August
31st); see also NWF v. NMFS, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (continuing summer spill injunction). As
Dr. Schaller explains in his Declaration, providing summer spill through the entire summer
migration season is important to preserve as much of the diversity of summer migrating juveniles
as possible, limit harm to them, and increase their resilience in the future. See Schaller Dec. at ¶
82.
Finally, NWF asks the Court to order the Corps to provide limited voluntary spill at each
of the eight lower Snake and Columbia River dams through one or more spill bays or other spill
route from September 1 through April 2 each year beginning in September, 2022. Additional
details regarding this aspect of voluntary spill are set forth in Oregonâs injunction motion. This
small amount of voluntary spill outside the spring and summer spill seasons will reduce the harm
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 57 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 50 -
to late and early migrating juveniles and afford benefits to ESA-listed adult steelhead in both the
Snake and Columbia Rivers that would otherwise be harmed by the absence of this limited spill.
See Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 82â84 (explaining how limited spill outside the juvenile migration
seasons will reduce harm to both juvenile salmon and juvenile and adult steelhead).
The above spill relief is narrowly tailored to be consistent with state water quality
standards that protect salmon and other species, to allow limited flexibility to adjust spill levels
at any dam to best ensure the most effective overall spill conditions, and to provide survival
benefits to juvenile salmon and adult and juvenile steelhead that are not provided by the
Proposed Action.
C. Lowering Reservoir Levels as NWF Seeks Will Reduce Irreparable Harm to Salmon and Steelhead and Increase Their Survival.
NWF also seeks an injunction to require the Corps to operate the reservoirs behind the
dams on the lower Snake and lower Columbia Rivers at lower elevations than those allowed by
the Proposed Action in the 2020 BiOp for the reasons discussed below.
As Dr. Schaller explains in his Declaration, lowering the elevation of the reservoirs
behind these dams reduces the cross-section of the reservoir and increases the speed with which
water moves through the reservoirs. See Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 85â89. This reduced water transit
time also reduces the amount of time required for juvenile salmon to pass through a reservoir and
will reduce water temperatures in these reservoirs to some extent as water spends less time in
each reservoir. Id. Extensive scientific analysis confirms that faster juvenile travel time through
the reservoirs of the hydrosystem reduces the harm they suffer and increases their survival rates.
Id. While the precise reduction in mortality, and increase in survival, that is achieved by an
incremental reduction in reservoir elevation and the corresponding decrease in water transit time
cannot be calculated exactly, the relationship between faster water transit time, faster fish travel
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 58 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 51 -
time, and reduced mortality/increased survival is well-established. Id. In short, each incremental
reduction in reservoir elevation, and even more so the combination of incremental reductions in
elevation across a series of reservoirs, will reduce the harm to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
The reservoir elevations NWF seeks for the spring and summer seasons beginning in
March, 2022 for the four reservoirs on the lower Snake River will actually restore these
reservoirs to the elevations previously implemented by the Corps under prior BiOps (e.g.,
minimum operating pool with a one-foot operating range), and will benefit juvenile salmon and
steelhead survival, see Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 92â93. The Proposed Action allows some of these
reservoirs to operate with wider operating ranges that result in higher reservoir elevations for
economic reasons (e.g., to facilitate barge navigation). See 2020 BiOp at 58â59 (Table 1.3-3 and
footnotes). These economic concerns are not a relevant consideration in this motion for an
injunction to protect ESA-listed species. NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *3, 6.
NWF also requests an injunction requiring the Corps to develop and submit, by
September 1, 2022, an implementation plan to operate the reservoirs above McNary, The Dalles,
John Day and Bonneville Dams at their MOP elevations, with a one-foot operating range, during
the spring season beginning in spring 2023. The Proposed Action (and prior BiOps) allow
operation of these reservoirs over a much larger range of higher elevations. As explained in Dr.
Schallerâs Declaration, reducing the elevation of these reservoirs will decrease water transit time,
decrease fish travel time, and provide incremental reductions in mortality for all ESA-listed
juvenile salmon and steelhead. Schaller Dec. at ¶¶ 94â103 (discussing benefits to salmon and
steelhead of these lower reservoir elevations). This increased protection includes juvenile
salmon and steelhead from the Columbia River above the confluence with the Snake as they too
must survive passage through the lower Columbia River reservoirs. Id.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 59 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 52 -
NWF asks the Court to order the Corps to submit a plan for operating these reservoirs at
their MOP elevations beginning in the spring of 2023 because there may be issues related to
operating these reservoirs at lower elevations that the Corps will need to address as part of
implementing this spring MOP operation (such as alternatives to the 2020 BiOpâs increased
spring reservoir elevations at John Day to discourage tern nesting on islands in John Day pool,
see, e.g., 2020 BiOp at 58, 74 (describing this action); but see id. at 72â73 (describing other
measures to discourage tern nesting at other locations)). The Court and parties should have an
opportunity to review and evaluate this plan before it is implemented.
It is worth noting that allowing the elevation of John Day reservoir to fluctuate well
above prior levels during a portion of the spring salmon migration can create opportunities to
generate additional hydropower at times when market prices are higher (generally termed âload-
followingâ). To the extent that there are any financial considerations involved in allowing
operation of this and the other lower Columbia River reservoirs above their MOP elevations
during the spring migration season, they are not relevant to NWFâs motion for an injunction.
NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *3, 6.
D. The Court Should Grant NWF the Injunctive Relief It Seeks for the Corpsâ Violation of the ESA.
The relevant question in this motion is whether the relief NWF and Oregon seek for the
Corpsâ violations of the ESA will likely reduce the risk of harm to the listed species and is
narrowly tailored. See supra at 20â21 (describing the standard of review for an injunction under
the ESA).
As NWF explains above, ongoing hydrosystem operations under the Proposed Action
will kill and injure ESA-listed salmon and steelhead and cause continued irreparable harm. As
the Court has concluded on a number of prior occasions in granting a spill injunction, carefully
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 60 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 53 -
tailored increased spill that complies with state water quality standards reduces this harm. See
NWF v. NMFS, 2017 WL 1829588 at *5â11; NWF v. NMFS, 2005 WL 1398223 at *4â5; see
also NWF v. NMFS, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (âAfter many years of resistance, NOAA Fisheries
now acknowledges that spring and summer spill is necessary to avoid excessive juvenile salmon
mortality.â). The same finding is warranted here.
In addition, NWF and Oregon have submitted clear evidence to show that the spill and
reservoir elevations they seek will, separately and in combination, reduce the harm to, and
increase the survival of, ESA-listed salmon and steelhead from the levels that would otherwise
occur under the Proposed Action. The increased spring spill NWF seeks as a remedial measure
is now allowed by state water quality standards and can be further adjusted by the salmon
managers if necessary. The extended summer spill through August 31 simply restores a survival
benefit for summer migrating juveniles that the 2020 BiOp eliminates, one the Court has
previously required. The limited spill outside the spring and summer seasons NWF seeks will
benefit early- and late-migrating juveniles as well as adult steelhead. The lower reservoir
elevations NWF seeks will individuallyâand even more so cumulativelyâdecrease water travel
time and fish travel time through the lower Snake and Columbia reservoirs, and so also reduce
mortality to these species from levels that would otherwise occur under the 2020 BiOpâs
Proposed Action. Based on these facts and the relevant case law, the Court should grant NWFâs
and Oregonâs motions for an injunction under the ESA.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, NWF respectfully requests that the Court grant it a
preliminary injunction for the Corpsâ violations of the ESA as requested herein.
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 61 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 54 -
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of July, 2021. /s/ Todd D. True TODD D. TRUE (WSB #12864) AMANDA W. GOODIN (WSB #41312) Earthjustice 810 Third Ave., Suite 610 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 343-7340 | Phone (206) 343-1526 | Fax [email protected] [email protected] DANIEL J. ROHLF (OSB #99006) Earthrise Law Center Lewis & Clark Law School 10015 S.W. Terwilliger Boulevard, MSC 51 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 768-6707 | Phone (503) 768-6642 | Fax [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 62 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 55 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with Local Rule 7-2(b) and the Courtâs Order of July 1, 2021 (ECF
2370) granting NWFâs motion to file an opening memorandum in support of its motion for a
preliminary injunction of up to 55 pages in length. The memorandum filed herewith is 51 pages
long excluding NWFâs motion but including headings, footnotes, and quotations, but excluding
the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, signature block, exhibits, and any certificates
of counsel.
DATED: July 16, 2021.
/s/ Todd D. True TODD D. TRUE
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 63 of 64
NWFâS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Page 56 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Courtâs
CM/ECF filing system, which will send notice of the filing upon all parties registered in the
CM/ECF system for this matter.
DATED: July 16, 2021.
/s/ Todd D. True TODD D. TRUE
Case 3:01-cv-00640-SI Document 2373 Filed 07/16/21 Page 64 of 64